Appeal No. 2006-0045
Application No. 10/190,473
pivot component corresponds to the ball stud portion 44 disclosed by Templeton and
the ball-end pin (or pin-member) recited in the appellant’s claims. For purposes of the
rejection, the examiner focuses on the embodiment illustrated by Buhl in Figures 3 and
3a which is described as follows:
FIG. 3 shows a positive-locking connection between the edge
profile 9 on the [conical] shaft part 5 of the ball pivot 2 with a fluted or
knurled area 13 on the circumference of the shaft part 5 of the ball pivot 2.
Into the depressions of the area 13 the material of the undersized edge
profile 9 of the sealing cuff 7 penetrates. This also brings about
positive-locking, firm connection between the edge profile 9 of the sealing
cuff 7 and the shaft part 5 of the ball pivot 2. This firm connection can be
supported by embedding a retaining ring 14 in the material of the edge
profile 9 of the sealing cuff 7 instead of an outer circumferential retaining
ring 10. The design of this positive-locking connection between the edge
profile 9 of the sealing cuff 7 and a fluted area 13 provided at the inner
end of the shaft part 5 of the ball pivot 2 is illustrated in FIG. 3a on an
enlarged scale compared with the scale of FIG. 3 [column 3, line 60,
through column 4, line 8].
Combining Templeton and Buhl to reject claims 1 and 12, the examiner submits
that it would have been obvious “to modify the Templeton [collar] orifice to be conical in
shape and have protrusions mating with grooves on the ball-end pin, as taught
by Buhl, for the purpose of locking the flange to the shank” (answer, page 3).
This proposed modification of Templeton’s collar 13 and ball-end pin (stud
portion 44) in view of Buhl, however, is entirely inconsistent with the stated purposes of
the collar. More specifically, locking the collar to ball stud portion would appear to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007