Appeal 2006-2165
Application 10/652,958
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-21 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of
Ward I or claims 1-19 of Ward II.
2. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 20, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of
Kernes, Blackburn, or Seabrook or alternatively in view of Appellant’s
admissions at page 13 of the Specification.
Appellant argues the prior art does not disclose or suggest a claim
feature common to independent claims 1, 6, 11, 15, and 20. We choose
claim 20, the broadest claim on appeal, as the representative claim on which
to render our decision. Accordingly, we discuss Appellant’s arguments with
regard to only claim 20 in our opinion below.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Appellant argues that none of the applied patents (i.e., Richardson,
Kernes, Blackburn, or Seabrook) provide motivation for the Examiner’s
proposed combination of the prior art under § 103 (Br. 9-11). Specifically,
Appellant argues that Richardson does not disclose or even suggest using an
antimicrobial agent in the pillow block for mounting a bearing (Br. 10).
Regarding Kernes, Blackburn or Seabrook, Appellant argues that none of the
patents disclose incorporating an antimicrobial agent in a bearing housing
(Br. 10). Appellant contends that “even if the use of microbial [sic
antimicrobial] agents in certain plastic environments was known, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013