Appeal No. 2004-1811
Application 10/253,785
2004) and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8, filed October 27,
2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 10, filed March 11, 2004) for a
full exposition thereof.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have come to the
conclusion that the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our reasoning in support
of this determination follows.
In rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner has determined that Jarrett discloses a monobloc piston
comprising a piston body fabricated of two steel parts (42, 44)
joined by a friction weld joint, wherein said piston body
includes a combustion bowl (54) formed in the upper surface of
the piston body and defined at least in part by a combustion bowl
wall; an outer annular ring band or wall (56) having a plurality
of ring grooves (64) formed therein; an inner support wall (80,
108) spaced radially inwardly of the outer ring wall and joined
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007