Appeal No. 1998-0328
Application No. 08/383,251
The examiner has additionally cited the following
references on page 3 of the answer to show that corrosion
protection of ball joints is known in the art:
Bokros 4,131,957 Jan. 2, 1979
Harris et al. 5,560,103 Oct. 1, 1996
(Harris) (filed effective August 26, 1992)
The examiner has also cited the following references on
page 3 of the answer “[a]s concerns the process of ‘cold
forming/cold working’ members of a ball joint”:
Crook, Jr. (Crook) 3,825,356 Jul. 23, 1974
Theobald 4,463,590 Aug. 7, 1984
Theobald 4,543,812 Oct. 1, 1985
Gallagher, Jr. 5,453,139 Sep. 26,
1995
(Gallagher) (filed Jul. 15, 1994)
Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Canadian
Mitchell reference in view of the German Latzen reference, and
claims 12 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over British Lemforder reference in view of
the Mitchell reference. Reference is made to the examiner’s
answer for details of these rejections.
We cannot sustain any of these rejections. Both of the
independent claims on appeal recite that “said pin stump [is]
non-rotatably joined to said machined joint ball by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007