Appeal No. 2004-1903
Application No. 09/973,741
lubricant” in claim 10 as allegedly distinguishing over the
lubricant injector arrangement of Harbottle. It is our view,
however, that, even accepting Appellant’s characterization of an
injector as a metered device which typically provides flow in only
one direction, there is nothing in the language “free flow” which
distinguishes over a metered unidirectional flow since it is
apparent from Harbottle that during injector operation lubricant
will in fact flow freely.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, and
21-23 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007