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 Appellant's ball holder is used only when the bearing body is withdrawn from the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and Issues sections it is apparent to us that the examiner has withdrawn this rejection as to claims 36 and 38 and that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Arguments section on page 5, that the examiner has not withdrawn this rejection.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