Ex parte MCCAULEY et al. - Page 7




          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