Appeal No. 96-3374
Application No. 08/115,974
applied prior art) adduced by the examiner in the rejection of
claim 20, we are constrained to reverse the rejection for the
following reason.
Claim 20 sets forth the same basic elements (e.g., shaft
member, cam, base circle portion, lobe portion, etc.) as claim
1. In addition, claim 20 recites that a solid film lubricant
which impregnates the outer surface of the cam also
impregnates the outer surfaces of the shaft member and a
bearing member on the shaft member.
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 surfaces of the shaft member
and the bearing 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 or that it is known to apply a solid film lubricant to
the outer surface of the bearing member. Thus, the limitation
that "said first and second and third outer surfaces having an
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007