Ex parte TANAKA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-3862                                                          
          Application No. 08/068,091                                                  


          metal layer, said bearing alloy consisting essentially of, by               
          weight, 2-8% zinc, 0.1-8% silicon, 0.1-3% copper, 0.05-3%                   
          magnesium and the balance of aluminium, wherein said multi-                 
          layered bearing is a product of solution heat treatment at a                
          temperature of at least 450EC and artificial aging treatment at a           
          temperature of at most 250EC, and wherein said bearing alloy                
          layer has a hardness of at least Hv 71.                                     
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Mori                              4,170,469         Oct.  9, 1979           
          Ogawa et al. (Ogawa)              4,786,340         Nov. 22, 1988           
          Tanaka et al. (Tanaka)            5,028,393         July  2, 1991           
          Faure                             5,110,372         May   5, 1992           
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a multi-layered           
          bearing comprising an aluminum base bearing alloy layer of the              
          recited composition and a backing metal layer.  The multi-layered           
          bearing is the product of solution heat treatment and artificial            
          aging, and the bearing alloy layer has a hardness of at least               
          Hv 71.                                                                      
               Appealed claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as           
          being unpatentable over Mori or Tanaka in view of Ogawa or Faure.           
               We have carefully reviewed the respective positions advanced           
          by appellants and the examiner.  In so doing, we agree with                 
          appellants that the claimed invention, considered as a whole,               
          would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art             
          within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Accordingly, we will not            
          sustain the examiner's rejection.                                           

                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007