Appeal No. 2004-1193
Application 09/639,324
invention as defined in claim 1 on appeal, since the entirety of
the outer race of bearing (24) in Pew would then be supported by
an elastomeric silencing layer as shown in Volz at (23), instead
of providing an arrangement wherein two different areas and forms
of support for the two outer edges of the bearing are present as
specified in appellants’ claim 1. As for the examiner’s further
use of Nichting to modify the structure resulting from the
initial combination of Pew and Volz, since the elastomeric ring
(23) of Volz used in the bearing (24) of Pew would provide a snug
and tight fit for the bearing in bearing block (22) of Pew’s hand
power tool, we see no reason or motivation to further look to
Nichting for any such teaching. Moreover, following the
teachings of Nichting to modify the initial combination of Pew
and Volz would appear to result in a structure like that seen in
Nichting (Figure 1) and not that specified in claim 1 on appeal
and as generally shown in appellants’ drawing Figures 1, 2, 11,
13 and 14 of the present application.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 3, 14 and 15 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pew
in view of Volz and Nichting.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007