Appeal No. 2002-1603
Application 09/320,853
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 21, mailed January 11,
2001), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 29, mailed January 14,
2002), appellants’ brief (Paper No. 28, filed December 28, 2001),
and reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed March 14, 2002) for a full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation and obviousness
issues raised in this appeal in light of the record before us, we
have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Otsuka, it is the
examiner’s opinion that Otsuka discloses (Figs. 3-5) a tripod
constant velocity universal joint including an outer member (1)
having appropriate track grooves and roller guide surfaces for
accommodating a tripod member (3) having three radially
projecting trunnions (4) and rollers (5) carried on the
trunnions, wherein each roller (5) is shown with annular
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007