Appeal No. 96-3374
Application No. 08/115,974
We will not sustain the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 13. Based on the evidence (i.e., the
applied prior art) adduced by the examiner in the rejection of
claim 13, we are constrained to reverse the rejection for the
following reason.
Claim 13 sets forth the same basic elements (e.g., shaft
member, cam, base circle portion, lobe portion, etc.) as claim
1. In addition, claim 13 recites that the shaft member has an
outer surface which is impregnated with a solid film lubricant
which also impregnates the outer surface of the cam.
We agree with the appellants that the applied prior art
fails to provide the needed suggestion or motivation to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants'
invention to impregnate the outer surface of the shaft member
with a solid film lubricant. In fact, none of the applied
prior art teaches that it is known to apply a solid film
lubricant to the outer surface of the shaft member. Thus, the
limitation that "said first and second outer surfaces having
an open porosity and are impregnated with a solid film
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007