Appeal No. 2005-0687
Application No. 10/097,510
paragraph).
We further agree with the examiner that Fruhstorfer
establishes the obviousness of utilizing a thrust collar having a
flange peripheral surface that is parallel to the center axis of
the thrust collar. As noted by the examiner, each of the three
designs for the thrust collars of Fruhstorfer has different
structural shapes for different applications, and it would have
been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art
to select the particular design for the thrust collar which
optimizes the retention of lubricant (see paragraph bridging
pages 7 and 8 of Answer).
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner for the claimed subject
matter.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007