Appeal No. 1999-1478
Application 08/742,327
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
In rejecting claim 1 under either appellants’ admitted
prior art in view of Itoh or alternatively over appellants’
admitted prior art in view of Connard and Itoh, the examiner
relies upon Itoh for a teaching of applying a dry film
lubricant to the shaft. The examiner has taken the position
that Itoh discloses that solid lubricating film has excellent
lubricating properties and will last for a long time. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to add a dry film lubricant to the shaft of the admitted prior
art to prevent damage to the shaft by friction. The examiner
further concludes that in a coal pulverizer a dry film
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007