Appeal No. 96-3202
Application No. 08/183,464
Rao (which impregnates the surface) for the solid film9
lubricant on the outer surfaces of the cam (i.e., the base
portion and the lobe portion) and the tappet to further
decrease friction as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
The arguments advanced by the appellants (brief, pp. 19-
22 and reply brief, pp. 3-4) does not persuade us that claim
14 is unobvious over the applied prior art for the reasons
stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2 through 13 and 15 through 19
As set forth previously, the appellants have grouped
claims 1 through 13 as standing or falling together and claim
14 through 19 as standing or falling together. Thereby, in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), dependent claims 2
through 13 fall with independent claim 1 and dependent claims
15 through 19 fall with independent claim 14. Thus, it
follows that the examiner's rejections of claim 2 through 13
and 15 through 19 under
9Id.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007