Appeal No. 1999-1876
Application No. 08/626,488
described by the examiner on page 3 of the answer, and need not
be repeated here.
The examiner finds that Parker does not teach "a complete
chassis strut which is formed simultaneously/integrally with the
socket," but concludes that it would have been obvious to form
such a strut in view of Ueno (answer, pages 3 to 4). We note
however, that claim 15 does not require forming a complete
chassis strut, but only "simultaneously forming a connection
piece of said socket in said injection molding tool." Since the
portion of Parker's plastic socket 5 which covers the ring 3 and
the neck portion of the steering rod 4 (to the right of ball 2 in
Fig. 1) constitutes a "connection piece," as broadly recited, we
consider that Parker meets all the limitations of claim 15.2
Moreover, assuming that Parker does not disclose forming a
connection piece, as claimed, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious in view of Ueno to make a chassis strut
(connection piece) simultaneously and integrally with the
2 While this is tantamount to a conclusion that Parker
anticipates claim 15 under § 102(b), it is an appropriate basis
for sustaining the § 103(a) rejection since "The complete
disclosure of an invention in the prior art is the ultimate or
epitome of obviousness." In re Avery, 518 F.2d 1228, 1234, 186
USPQ 161, 166 (CCPA 1975).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007