Appeal No. 2002-0491
Application No. 09/287,081
56 belies the appellants’ contention that the reference also
lacks response to the “flange” limitation in claim 14.
Steiner discloses a similar assembly wherein the bushing 12
is pressed fitted into its retainer (sleeve 11) and is removably
connected thereto as evidenced by the need for spacers 13 and
snap rings 14 to fix it in place. This teaching would have
suggested removably press fitting Baltare’s bushing into its
retainer for the self-evident purpose of permitting the bushing
to be removed for repair or replacement.
Steiner also discloses a bushing lubrication arrangement
including a hole through the retainer (sleeve 11) for
accommodating grease fitting 16. Steiner’s discussion (see
column 1, lines 6 through 37) of the conventional practice of
lubricating bushing assemblies of the type at issue and the
advantages of doing so via the lubrication arrangement disclosed
therein would have provided the artisan with ample suggestion to
incorporate this arrangement, including the hole in the retainer,
into Baltare’s bushing assembly to achieve the manifest
operational benefits afforded by lubrication. The appellants’
arguments to the contrary rest on the unfounded assertions that
Baltare’s retainer (cam shaft support flange 44) is too thin to
support a lubrication function and that the addition of such a
function would destroy Baltare’s intention that the retainer be
capable of reverse mounting on spider body 42. The record,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007