Appeal No. 97-0759
Application 08/155,564
case of obviousness, the examiner has to provide supporting
evidence and a logical explanation why one with ordinary skill in
the art would be motivated to make the required structure. Here,
the examiner has provided no evidence that O-rings were well
known to provide biasing, let alone biasing of the specific ball
structure recited in claim 1, and much less in the manner as
recited in claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 each depend indirectly from claim 1 and thus
each include all features of independent claim 1. Tanaka was
relied on by the examiner to meet the additional feature recited
in claim 5, and Kindred was relied on by the examiner to meet the
additional feature recited in claim 6. Thus, neither Tanaka nor
Kindred, as applied by the examiner, makes up for the defi-
ciencies of Karl and Hagberg.
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1 and 3-6 cannot be
sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Karl and Hagberg is reversed.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Karl, Hagberg and Tanaka is reversed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007