Appeal No. 1999-0721
Application No. 08/683,826
mailed July 7, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the above-noted rejections and to the appeal brief (Paper
No. 13, filed June 10, 1998) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellants’
specification and claims, the applied prior art references,
and the respective positions advanced by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have come to the
conclusion, for the reasons which follow, that the examiner's
rejections of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
not well founded and, therefore, will not be sustained.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and
6 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Taylor or
Winters, we note that Bauer discloses a flat fiction ring
including a supporting ring (1) and a friction lining (3) on
at least one side of the supporting ring, with the friction
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007