Appeal No. 2004-0575
Application 09/206,005
date, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based on a “public
use.”
THE PRIOR ART REJECTION
The last of the examiner’s rejections on appeal is that of
claims 1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over FR ‘272 in view of Gilroy and Hayashi.
According to the examiner (final rejection, Paper No. 24, pages
14-16), to have used FR ‘272 to cool a transmission as taught by
Gilroy would have been obvious to prevent overheating and attain
a compact structure. In addition, the examiner contends that to
have formed the banjo bolt section of FR ‘272 “integrally” with
the valve section is fairly taught by Hayashi in Figure 9
(elements 87 and 88) and that making integral two parts that are
fastened together is well known to be obvious.
For the reasons aptly set forth in appellant’s brief and
reply brief, we will not sustain the examiner’s above-noted
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Like appellant, we are of the view that it would be antithetical
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007