Appeal 2006-2165
Application 10/652,958
§ 103(a) over Richardson in view of Kernes, Blackburn, or Seabrook, or
alternatively in view of Appellant’s admission on page 13 of the
Specification, in further view of “official notice of common knowledge in
the art, or, in the alternative, engineering design choice” (Non-Final Office
Action mailed September 29, 2004, 4-5). The § 103 rejection applied to
claim 19 was withdrawn in the Final Office Action, however, the disposition
of claim 19 with regard to the prior art rejections was never resolved (i.e., it
was neither objected to nor included in a §§ 102 or 103 rejection).2 Claims
2, 10, and 19 appear to be disclosed or suggested by Richardson such that a
rejection under § 103(a) of these claims over Richardson in view of Kernes,
Blackburn, or Seabrook, or alternatively in view of Appellant’s admission
on page 13 of the Specification appears appropriate.
Regarding claim 2, Richardson discloses forming the pillow block out
of “conventional thermoplastic structural foam materials” (Richardson, col.
1, ll. 41-43, 59-61) and therefore would have suggested using the “moldable
structural foam material” of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Richardson discloses “the attachment portion
[Figure 1, ref. no. 36, 34] forms a base on which the support housing [Figure
1, ref. no. 12] is mounted when placed in service, and wherein the base
includes a base mounting surface extending substantially in a plane and
coextensive with the base [Figure 1, ref. no. 34, the “substantially” flat
2 The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under obvious-type double patenting
over Ward I and Ward II in the Final Office Action. However, the Examiner
additionally rejected claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 20-21 under § 103.
Moreover, claims 2, 3-5, 8, 10, and 14 were objected to by the Examiner.
However, claim 19 was not rejected under § 103(a) or objected to by the
Examiner. Hence, the disposition of claim 19 is unclear.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013