Appeal 2006-1263
Application 10/173,259
of substantially elliptical right section, the peripheral wall of
each bushing including at least one groove opening out into
the annular space and into which the or each orifice opens
out so as to be fed with air and so as to cool the peripheral
wall of the bushing.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monk in view of Rice; and
claims 8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monk in
view of Rice and Mumford.1
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Monk US 3,656,297 Apr. 18, 1972
Mumford US 4,475,344 Oct. 09, 1984
Rice US 6,351,949 Mar. 05, 2002
(filed Sep. 03, 1999
1On page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 28, 2005, beneath
the heading “(10) Grounds of Rejection” the Examiner states “[t]hese
rejections are set forth in a prior Office Action, mailed May 20, 2004.
However on page 2 of the Office action mailed June 7, 2005 the Examiner
states that “the final rejection of May 20, 2004 is hereby withdrawn”, and
restates the rejections anew. Therefore the Examiner’s answer should
reference the Final rejection mailed June 7, 2005 and not the withdrawn
rejections mailed May 20, 2004. Accordingly, we base our decision on the
Final rejection mailed June 7, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013