Appeal 2007-1792
Application 10/050,834
their established functions, no further analysis was required by the Examiner.
KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
B. Rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mizusawa in view of Edwards, and further in view of McEowen.
Appellant does not disagree with Examiner that McEowen shows shallow
channels in the lower end of the housing used as grease reservoirs as required by
claim 8 (Br. 5). The only argument against this rejection is a restatement of the
above objections to the combination of Mizusawa in view of Edwards, (Id.), which
fails here for the same reasons it did with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
C. Rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Scheublein, Jr. in view of Maughan.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant reasserts the argument against the
combination of Mizusawa in view of Edwards. Those arguments are inapposite
because this rejection relies on neither Mizusawa nor Edwards.
Appellant further argues that Scheublein, Jr. does not provide a reason for
the truncated flat face of the ball and “[f]rom Appellant's perspective, it ‘appears’
that the truncated flat face is sufficient to receive lubricant for lubrication purposes
only” (Br. 6). Because claim 1 requires only “the lubricating port being openly
connected to a duct, said duct providing a passageway for lubricants from the
lubricating port to the truncated flat face of the ball,” Scheublein, Jr. meets the
disputed claim limitation. Appellant’s argument is not directed to a specific
limitation in the claim, and thus cannot distinguish the claim over the prior art.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013