Appeal No. 1999-1876
Application No. 08/626,488
the ball into the socket, and modification of the Parker process
in view of Ueno's teachings, discussed above, would result in a
process in which the socket 5 was molded around the ball 2, and
the socket, ring 3 and rod 4 were all molded as one integral
piece of plastic, thereby meeting the method recited in claim 15.
For similar reasons, we consider the rejection of claim 15
as unpatentable over Donnellan in view of Ueno to be well taken.
Appellant has made the same arguments with regard to this
rejection (brief, pages 12 to 14) as with regard to the
combination of Parker and Ueno, and they are equally
unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 10 and 12 to 14 is
reversed, pro forma. The examiner's decision to reject claim 15
is affirmed. Claims 10 and 12 to 15 are rejected pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53, 131, 53, 197 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007