Appeal No. 2002-0491
Application No. 09/287,081
problem or present a new or unexpected result, the similarity in
structure and identity of function between the multiple flanges
recited in claims 7 and 19 and Baltare’s single flange support a
conclusion that the multiple flanges would have been an obvious
matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill
in the art (see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9
(CCPA 1975)).
Dependent claims 10 through 13 and 15 through 17 define
lubrication components (a grease fitting associated with the
lubricant hole in the retainer and various lubricant grooves and
holes in the bushing) which Steiner shows to be conventional
expedients. Steiner’s description of the benefits afforded by
these features would have suggested the incorporation of same
into Baltare’s retainer and bushing.
Hence, the combined teachings of Baltare and Steiner justify
the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the
subject matter recited in claims 1, 5, 7, 10 through 17 and 19
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007