Appeal No. 2002-1822
Application No. 09/197,164
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11 through 15 and 20 through 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallace '679
in view of Narkon.
As for the additional rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11
through 15 and 20 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Daugherety '819 in view of Narkon, since the
structure of the male connection member (20) in the coupling
apparatus of Daugherety '819 and the race assembly (44) received
therein are essentially the same as those seen in Wallace '679,
and the examiner's statement of the rejection is the same except
for changing the name of the primary reference, we observe that
our comments above regarding the failings of the proposed
combination of Wallace '679 and Narkon apply equally well to the
combination of Daugherety '819 and Narkon. Moreover, those same
comments also apply with equal force to the examiner's proposed
combination of Kanjo and Narkon under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applied
against dependent claims 16 through 19 on appeal. Accordingly,
the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11 through 15 and
20 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Daugherety '819 in view of Narkon and that of claims 16 through
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007