Appeal No. 96-2299
Application No. 08/072,753
As for the argument that the details of the bearing
construction recited in claims 15, 16 and 18 would not have
been obvious to the artisan, we note that Witt describes the
pilot as “a ball-bearing pilot 29 which rolls against the
unworked portion of the edge of the workpiece” (sentence
bridging columns 2 and 3), and McKinney as a “ball bearing
guide wheel 11 mounted . . . in a manner well known in the
art” (column 3, lines 17-19). It is our opinion that the one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ball
bearing guide wheels conventionally comprise one piece inner
and outer sleeves within which the ball bearings are mounted,
and would have found it obvious to mount the guide wheels such
that the inner sleeve is attached to the tool and the outer
sleeve contacts the workpiece.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of the
applied references establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of the appealed claims, and
we therefore will sustain the rejection.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007