Appeal No. 2000-1632
Application No. 09/055,308
first balls are surface treated by molybdenite and the second
balls are surface treated by diamond-like carbon. Claim 11
depends from claim 10 and adds that the diameters of the smaller
diameter balls is in the range of one-third to one-half the
diameters of the larger diameter balls. Claims 12 and 13 depend
from claim 3 and are similar to claims 4 and 5 in that they add
to the claim from which they depend that the first balls are
made of beryllium copper alloy and bronze, respectively.
The examiner’s conclusion that these claims are
unpatentable over Rumsey alone, notwithstanding the examiner’s
admission that Rumsey does not teach, suggest or imply what is
additionally required by these dependent claims, is not
sustainable in that there is no objective evidence to support
the examiner’s determinations of obviousness. See, for example,
In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1582, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1123 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (a factual basis is required to validate a claim
rejection under
§ 103).
Summary.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007