Appeal No. 2001-0724
Application No. 09/251,602
the disclosure of bracket 42 being “force-fitted” into wall 62 of Kawahira (col. 7, ll. 38-
44; Fig. 3), would not have suggested all the requirements of instant claim 7.
Appellant has not responded to the rejection of claim 6 under section 103 as
being unpatentable over Shiraki, Miller, and Hawsey. The rejection relies on Hawsey
(e.g., col. 4, ll. 11-17) for the teaching of the annular member being formed substantially
of an alloy of iron, neodymium, and boron. Appellant having not shown error in the
rejection, we sustain the section 103 rejection of claim 6.
In summary, we have sustained the section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,
and 9, but have not sustained the rejection of claims 3, 5, and 7.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, but
the rejection of claims 3, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The examiner’s
decision in rejecting claims 1-9 is thus affirmed-in-part.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007