Ex parte KREMSMAIR et al. - Page 3




          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