Appeal No. 2002-1603
Application 09/320,853
entire inner surface of the roller” (emphasis in original), which
is inconsistent with the disclosure of Otsuka considered as a
whole.
As a result of the foregoing, it is abundantly clear to us
that the tripod type constant velocity universal joint seen in
Figures 3-5 of Otsuka is fully responsive to the constant
velocity joint defined in appellants’ claim 1 on appeal. Thus,
having found the examiner’s position with regard to the rejection
of claim 1 on appeal based on Otsuka to be well founded and
appellants’ arguments for the patentability of claim 1 to be
unpersuasive, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
As for the examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Otsuka in view of Beduhn and
Otsuka in view of Murphy, respectively, we observe that
appellants have stated their position in the reply brief (page 7)
as being that “neither Beduhn or Murphy overcome the above-
described deficiencies in the teachings . . . of Otsuka.”
However, since it is our determination above that the
“deficiencies” perceived by appellants are found in Otsuka either
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007