Appeal No. 2004-1171
Application No. 09/754,618
The argument of appellants (main brief, pages 5 through 10
and reply brief, pages 2 through 7) fails to convince this panel
of the Board that the examiner erred in rejecting appellants’
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In our opinion, the
circumstance that the Volkmuth and Technical Book references do
not mention thrust bearings, as argued, does not detract from the
obviousness of the combination of references as applied above.
It must be recognized that Niina expressly teaches hardened steel
thrust bearings in a scroll compressor, and that the Volkmuth and
Technical Book reference would have instructed those versed in
the art as to known through-hardenable steels, particularly
appropriate and suitable for bearing use. Thus, we are of the
view that the references, collectively assessed, clearly would
have provided ample motivation for their combination, contrary to
the position taken by appellants (main brief, page 9, and reply
brief, page 6). Additionally, the argument presented by
appellants relative to the dependent claims (main brief, page 11)
simply does not convince us that claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are
patentable.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007