Appeal No. 2002-2148 Page 11
Application No. 09/627,143
In our opinion, the examiner's uncontested explanation as to how the above-
identified limitations of claims 3 to 5 and 9 to 11 are readable on Mannava is correct.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3 to 7 and 9 to 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 14 to 19
We will not sustain either the rejection of claims 14 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Mannava in view of Prevey or the rejection of claims 18 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mannava in view of Prevey and
Sue.
Claim 14 reads as follows:
In a method of making the article of claim 1, the steps of:
selecting a depth of the band into the end portion; and then,
performing roller deformation on the end portion to the depth into the end
portion until the compressive stress is provided through the entire cross section
of the end portion.
Claim 14, unlike claim 1, is clearly limited to the material through the entire cross
section of the band being under a compressive stress greater than that of the body.
However, Mannava does not teach or suggest this limitation for the reasons set forth by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007