Appeal No. 2004-0531
Application 09/871/126
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 7. It
follows that we also sustain the obviousness rejection of the
respective remaining claim(s) in each of appellants’ groupings,
supra, since these claims stand or fall with claims 1 and 7 as
indicated.
Claim 1 is drawn to a work machine, comprising, inter alia,
at least one mounting member attached to the chassis of the work
machine, at least one elongate member having a first end, said
first end rotatably coupled to said mounting member, and a self-
lubricating member situated between the first end and mounting
member.
1(...continued)
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007