Appeal No. 2004-1193
Application 09/639,324
radial direction and a second outer edge of the bearing over its
length in the radial direction “through a ring (60) [sic,
60’’’].” The examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
appellants’ invention was made
to further modify the apparatus of Pew in view of Volz to
support the bearing radially as taught by Nichting, for the
purpose of providing a snug and tight fight [sic, fit] about
the bearing and synthetic plastic ring (Nichting-column 3,
lines 35-38).
After a careful consideration of the teachings of Pew, Volz
and Nichting, we share appellants’ view as expressed in the brief
(pages 7-11) that the applied references do not contain any hint
or suggestion that they can or should be combined with one
another in the particular manner urged by the examiner, and that
even if so combined, such combination would not lead to
appellants’ invention as defined in claim 1 on appeal.
Even if we were to agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention to add an elastomeric silencing layer
like that seen at (23) of Volz to the bearing (24) of Pew, we
note that such combination would not result in appellants’
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007