Appeal 2006-2165
Application 10/652,958
op. 10-11 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2007). See also Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney
Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
argued claims 1, 6, 11, 15, and 20 and non-argued claims 7, 9, 12, 13, 16,
17, and 21.
OBVIOUSNESS DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments regarding the
Examiner’s obviousness double patenting rejection and find them
unpersuasive for reasons below.
Appellant’s claim 20 recites a bearing component comprising a body
made of moldable polymeric material including an antimicrobial agent for
inhibiting growth of microorganisms (claim 20).
Ward I, for example, recites in claim 1 “[a] housing for a bearing
insert” comprising “moldable polymeric foam” and “an antimicrobial agent”
(Ward I, claim 1). Similarly, in Ward II, for example, claim 1 recites “[a]
support housing for a bearing insert” comprising “an admixture of a
moldable polymeric material and an antimicrobial agent” (Ward II, claim 1).
Therefore, the scope of Appellant’s claim 20 is the same as or broader
than the scope of Ward I’s and Ward II’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm
the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-21
over Ward I and Ward II.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Dependent claims 2 and 10 have been objected to by the Examiner
(Final Office Action, 4). Dependent claim 19 was originally rejected under
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013