Appeal No. 1999-1499
Application No. 08/764,736
the dependent claims with reasonable specificity. As a
result, we will treat the claims as not standing or falling on
the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borg-
Warner in view of Dutkiewicz, we note that both the examiner
and appellants appear to agree that Borg-Warner shows a
universal joint which is basically the same as that set forth
in claim 1 on appeal. In that regard, Borg-Warner shows a
cross member C having a first and second pair of shafts 17,
18, a first yoke A connected to the first pair of shafts 17, a
second yoke B having two opposed brackets 23, each bracket
having two arms, with each arm including a bore 29, a locator
finger 33 is disposed on each arm and is formed integrally
therewith, two bearings D each including a hollow cup 27 and
two opposed wings 28, each wing having a securement hole 30.
Depression 34 is disposed on an outer face of each bearing D.
The second pair of shafts 18 are each received in one of the
cups 27, and the bearings D are connected to brackets 23 with
securement members 31 passing through holes 30 and received in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007