Appeal No. 2004-1903
Application No. 09/973,741
1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482
F.2d 965, 967, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973).
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s arguments
(Brief, page 5; Reply Brief, page 1) that providing spacer openings
for lubrication would serve no purpose in Rode where the bearings
are outside the spacer. We agree with the Examiner, however, that
applying the teachings of Harbottle to provide openings in the
spacer of Rode would clearly provide for lubricant to reach the
cavity between the spacer and the wheel spindle. It is noteworthy,
as pointed out by the Examiner, that Rode would benefit from spacer
openings for lubrication just as Appellant’s device would since in
Appellant’s device the bearing assembly is also outside the spacer.
We further find to be without merit Appellant’s argument
which attacks the Examiner’s proposed combination by asserting that
the applied Rode and Harbottle references are from unrelated arts
since Rode is directed to bearings for a vehicle wheel hub while
Harbottle is directed to bearings for a machine tool spindle. We
note that the test for non-analogous art is first whether the art
is within the field of the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether
it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor
was involved. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174
(CCPA 1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007