Appeal 2006-2165
Application 10/652,958
Examiner has provided no suggestion or teaching whatsoever in the
references which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to place an
antimicrobial agent in the pillow block [bearing housing] of . . . Richardson .
. .” (Br. 10).
Appellant further contends that his statement on page 13 of the
Specification, “[a]s will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, such
antimicrobial agents may be added to the polymeric material prior to
injection molding and remain effective following the molding process,” does
not state that the process of adding antimicrobial agents to polymeric
material to form a bearing housing was known by one skilled in the art at the
time the invention was made (Br. 12). Rather, Appellant contends that his
statement is only evidence of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the
art (Br. 12).
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner has applied impermissible
hindsight to pick and choose among the disclosures of the prior art
references to support the § 103 rejection (Br. 12).
For the reasons below, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Richardson discloses a plastic pillow block made of thermoplastic
structural foam (Richardson, col. 1, ll. 36-43). The pillow block possesses
the same claimed features as Appellant’s bearing housing, except for the
antimicrobial agent.
Kernes discloses incorporating an antimicrobial agent into a plastic
catheter for controlling bacterial growth in the end portion of the catheter
(Kernes, col. 1, l. 55 to col. 2, l. 4). Blackburn discloses using antimicrobial
agents in the manufacture of plastics and resins (Blackburn, col. 1, ll. 41-42,
45). Seabrook discloses using antimicrobial agents in plastic applications
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013