Appeal No. 2000-0505
Application 08/856,743
applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to any of the claims on appeal.
Therefore, the rejections on appeal are reversed. Our reasons
follow.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, we note the examiner's opinion with
respect to the objection to the drawings on page 3 that the
mounting of the assembly between a pair of parallel platforms
is not shown. We note that claim 10 calls for the molded
journal box to be provided with an opposing pair of stringers.
In our view, the recitation of a pair of parallel platforms in
claim 10 is simply an environment in which the stringers mount
the journal box. They are not part of the positively recited
ball and socket bearing assembly and, as such, we find no
problem under the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007