Appeal No. 1999-1876
Application No. 08/626,488
socket.3 Ueno discloses in Fig. 11 and at col. 1, lines 25 to
34, that ball joints having synthetic resin seats 2 have been
formed with metal sockets 3 and a metal rod 4 connecting the
sockets, but that there are disadvantages to this arrangement
(e.g., expense, weight) (col. 1, lines 35 to 41). As an
alternative, Ueno teaches that these disadvantages may be
overcome by forming the sockets and rod integrally, all out of
synthetic resin (col. 1, line 47 et seq.). In view of this
teaching, we conclude that one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to make the rod 4 of Parker out of plastic, integral
with the socket 5, in order to gain the advantages taught by
Ueno. Contrary to appellant's argument, this combination of the
references would not be based on impermissible hindsight gleaned
from appellant's disclosure, but upon the suggestion in the
applied prior art of the desirability of making the combination.
Appellant also argues that if the teachings of Parker and
Ueno were combined, the combination would lack essential features
of the invention, because the ball-ended spindle would be pressed
into the bearing socket (brief, pages 11 and 12). We disagree.
Parker discloses molding a socket around the ball, not pressing
3 The examiner also cited Ueno for its teaching of a groove,
but a groove is not recited in claim 15.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007