Appeal No. 1996-4067
Application No. 08/227,686
Even if the Japanese abstract described similar
corresponding methodology as required by the claims on appeal,
this reference contains no teaching or suggestion of the
formation of a hard nitride layer on the shaft of the
described DC servo motor, much less that a hard nitride layer
should be formed only on the journal portion of the shaft by
the specific steps required by the appealed claims. That
shafts for other devices have been selectively nitrided and
that the specific nitriding process utilized by appellant is
described in the art in the Tahara patent is no basis for
combining the teachings of the relied upon references to
arrive at the claimed subject matter. The examiner’s
statement in the supplemental answer at page 6 that
“[N]itriding just a wear part of a shaft such as a journal
portion is within an ambit” of a person of ordinary skill in
the art is simply not an adequate reason to combine the
reference teachings in the manner implicitly proposed. Thus,
the examiner’s stated rejection cannot be sustained.
OTHER ISSUES
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007