Appeal No. 2004-1193
Application 09/639,324
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed December 23, 2003) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
15, filed July 3, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 1 through 3, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Pew, Volz and
Nichting the examiner has found (final rejection, page 2) that
Pew discloses
a hand power tool (10), comprising a housing (12); a motor
(M) arranged in the housing (12) and having a drive shaft
(16) with two opposite ends; bearings (24,36) each
supporting one of the ends of the drive shaft (16) in at
least one component (20; column 3, lines 37-38, column 4,
lines 46-50); an insert tool (38; column 3, lines 58-61): a
drive element (36) [sic] through which the said drive shaft
(16) is operatively connected with the insert tool (38;
column 3, lines 58-61), at least one of the bearings (24,
36) of the drive shaft (16) being supported on the component
(20) over one part of its length in a radial direction
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007