Appeal No. 2006-0045
Application No. 10/190,473
severely limit, if not destroy, the grease venting function of the collar and eliminate the
bearing relationship between the collar and ball stud portion which permits interference-
free rotation of the ball stud portion relative
to the socket. In this light, it is evident that the only suggestion for combining Templeton
and Buhl in the manner advanced by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Templeton and Buhl do not justify the
examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject matter recited in claims
1 and 12 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
independent claims 1 and 12, and dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13-15, as being
unpatentable over Templeton in view of Buhl.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12-15 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007