Appeal No. 2000-0337
Application No. 08/825,449 Page 10
Here, the examiner's broad, conclusory opinion of
obviousness does not meet the requirement for actual evidence.
Because Chuta and AAPA do not suggest providing an annular
recess within a bonding region, positioned axially between two
ball bearings without being axially aligned with either ball
bearing, we are not persuaded that teachings from the applied
prior art suggests the claimed limitations. We therefore find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chuta considered with AAPA is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007