Appeal No. 1997-4374 Page 3
Application No. 08/317,679
Australian Patent 154,916 Jan. 15,
1953
(Alford & Alder)
In addition, the examiner has cited for the first time in
the answer (see page 3) the following references “as evidence
of the Official Notice taken in the rejection in this
examiner’s answer” (answer, page 3):
Hasler et al. (Hasler) 4,618,163 Oct. 21,
1986
R.C. Dorf, Robotics and Automated Manufacturing, pp. 126-127
(1983)
Claims 6 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the Buhl patent in view of the
Australian patent. In support of this rejection, the examiner
states:
It would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to modify the type of
connection of Buhl to be a contour type weld
in view of [the Australian Patent] in order to
provide a strong, yet low cost connection
between the shaft and housing. As concerns
the limitations of a cold extruded housing and
a forged shaft, these are product by process
limitations and are not given patentable
weight; the claimed subject matter is drawn to
a product, namely an angle joint, and not a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007