Ex parte HATTORI - Page 2




            Appeal No. 1999-1721                                                           Page 2             
            Application No. 08/734,125                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The appellant's invention relates to a ball holder for use with a retainerless linear motion
            bearing and a rail, the bearing including a bearing body forming a saddle and a plurality of      
            steel balls.  Appellant's ball holder is used only when the bearing body is withdrawn from the    
            rail to retain the steel balls within the bearing body so as to prevent them from falling off upon
            withdrawal of the bearing body from the rail (specification, page 2).                             
                   The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed   
            claims are:                                                                                       
            Hara                      5,362,156                 Nov. 8, 1994                                  
            Appellant's admitted prior art on page 1 of the specification (AAPA)                              
                   The following rejections are before us for review.                                         
            1.     Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.   102(b) as being             
            anticipated by Hara.1                                                                             
            2.     Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.   103 as being unpatentable over Hara, as applied 
            above, and further  in view of AAPA.2                                                             


                   1In view of the examiner's comments on pages 2 and 3 of the answer (Paper No. 34) in the Status of Claims
            and Issues sections it is apparent to us that the examiner has withdrawn this rejection as to claims 36 and 38 and that
            the examiner's inclusion of claim 38 in the statement of this rejection on page 3 of the answer was an inadvertent
            error.                                                                                            
                   2Although this rejection is not reproduced in the Grounds of Rejection section of the answer, it is apparent
            from the brief as a whole, especially the comments in the Status of Claims section on page 3 and in the Response to
            Arguments section on page 5, that the examiner has not withdrawn this rejection.                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007