Appeal No. 1998-0328
Application No. 08/383,251
In the British reference, the pivot pin (6), which
corresponds to appellants’ pin stump, is non-rotatably
attached to the ball (2) by engagement of tapered or
frustoconical surfaces on the end (5) of the pin and the bore
(4) in the ball. Thus, the non-rotatable attachment of the
pin to the ball is not accomplished by deformation of any part
of the pin.
Furthermore, according to the evidence presented by
appellants (see page 672 in volume 12 of the Encyclopedia
Britannica), cold working alters the grain structure of the
metal to produce a finer grained metal. Thus, there is
unchallenged evidence that cold working structurally alters
the pin stump to distinguish the resulting product from the
prior art. The method limitation of cold forming the pin
stump must therefore be given weight in determining the
patentability of the appealed claims under the holding in In
re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981).
None of the applied references, namely the Mitchell,
German and British references, teaches or suggests the concept
of cold forming a pin stump as called for in the appealed
claims. The Mitchell reference does state that the pin member
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007