Appeal No. 2006-0026
Application No. 10/012,518
predetermine[d] orientation where one system will function as a
backup if the other system breaks during operation” (answer, page
6). Reasonably construed, however, the combined teachings of
Bellamy and the admitted prior art portray the oblong portion of
Bellamy and the oblong opening of the admitted prior art as
alternative angular movement restriction means rather than
redundant backups. Indeed, Bellamy clearly teaches away from the
use of an oblong opening as in the admitted prior art because it
results in premature ball joint fatigue. Considered in this light,
the only suggestion for combining Bellamy and the admitted prior
art in the manner advanced by the examiner stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Moreover, this flaw in the proposed combination of Bellamy and the
admitted prior art finds no cure in the examiner’s application of
Schmidt for its disclosure of a ball joint having a pre-loading
bearing spring.
Thus, the evidence advanced by the examiner does not justify a
conclusion that the differences between the subject matter recited
in claim 1 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007