Appeal No. 2006-0026
Application No. 10/012,518
language, this rejection shall be overcome. See 37 CFR § 41.50(c).
II. The examiner’s rejection
Normally, we would not consider the merits of a prior art
rejection of an indefinite claim since to do so would call for
speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claim. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). In
order to expedite prosecution in this case, however, we shall
proceed to review the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 3 and 5 under the assumption that the appellant intended
claim 1 to include the limitation which had been recited in
canceled claim 2, to wit: that the oblong portion is formed in the
cover member to restrict movement of said extension member. As
indicated above, the inclusion of such language in claim 1 would
obviate the indefiniteness problem.
Turning now to the merits of the § 103(a) rejection, Bellamy
discloses a ball joint for use in the steering system of an
automobile. As shown in Figure 2, the ball joint comprises a
socket 12 mounted on a steering system track rod 6, an aperture 14
at one end of the socket 12, a ball pin having (1) a spherical head
17 disposed within the socket 12, (2) a mating part 15 extending
from the spherical head 17 through the aperture 14 for connection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007