Appeal No. 2006-0026
Application No. 10/012,518
the apertures 14 in the track rod sockets 12 [column 3,
line 55, through column 4, line 9].
The examiner (see page 3 in the final rejection and page 5 in
the answer) concedes that Bellamy does not respond to the
limitations in claim 1 requiring (1) the box to include an oblong
opening through which the pin portion projects and (2) the
orientation of the oblong portion to be aligned with the
orientation of the oblong opening to restrict movement of the
extension member. Although Bellamy’s box (socket 13) includes an
opening (aperture 14) through which a portion (mating part 15) of
the ball pin projects, Bellamy does not describe the opening as
having any particular shape, let alone an oblong shape which is
aligned with the oblong portion (aperture 21) in the cover member
(plug 22). The examiner’s reliance on the admitted prior art to
overcome this deficiency in Bellamy is unsound.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious in view
of the admitted prior art to provide an oblong opening as recited
in the appealed claims to the ball joint box/socket disclosed by
Bellamy “since this arrangement will provide a double safe
arrangement where both the oblong opening and the oblong portion
will ensure proper angular movement of the ball joint along a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007