Appeal No. 2004-1903
Application No. 09/973,741
it may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have
commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his
problem because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Our review of the disclosures of Rode and Harbottle finds it
apparent, as asserted by the Examiner, that both references are
directed to anti-friction bearing arrangements for rotating
spindles. In our view, the skilled artisan, when considering the
recognized problems associated with spacer adjustment as disclosed
by Rode, would logically have consulted the teachings of Harbottle
to address the problem.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by
any convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of representative claims 1, as well as claims
2-7, 9, and 21-23 which fall with claim 1, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 10, the representative
claim for Appellant’s second suggested grouping, we also sustain
the rejection of this claim as well as claims 11, 12, 14, and 15
which fall with claim 10. Appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 7;
Reply Brief, page 2) direct attention to the language “free flow of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007