Appeal No. 2001-0313
Application 09/033,874
In rejecting claims 28, 32, 40, 45 and 48, as well as all of
the claims which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arnhold, the examiner has recognized that the
method disclosed in Arnhold is directed to producing a connecting
rod with a connecting eye having a bearing layer, wherein the
method includes the step of applying the bearing layer directly
to the connecting rod eye by thermal spraying of the bearing
material. In dealing with the second step in each of independent
claims 28, 32, 40 and 45, and the sequence of steps in claim 48,
the examiner has indicated in the answer (pages 3-4) that
[t]he thickness of the materials as well as the
particular materials used are article considerations absent
any showing of criticality. Appellant merely argues that
Arnhold et al do not teach these particulars, but has never
argued any reason as to why they are critical. Further, to
coat multiple eyes at the same time is considered a matter
of duplication of the same process and it is not seen how
this adds any novelty to the process as claimed. Forming
the oil duct by boring is considered old and well known in
the art, as the ducts are inherently formed by some method
and ducts are well known to be formed by boring. The type
of thermal spraying used is considered an obvious matter of
design choice absent any showing of a new or unobvious
result. Furthermore, regarding the roughening of the
surface before the thermal spray is applied, Arnhold et al
teach that “pretreatment of the bearing seat surface is
generally not necessary, or only necessary to a small
extent.” Roughening of the surface before the thermal
spraying is a pretreatment, and this is clearly taught to be
done, , at least to a small extent.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007