Ex Parte Ward - Page 10

                   Appeal 2006-2165                                                                                                 
                   Application 10/652,958                                                                                           

                   op. 10-11 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2007).  See also Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney                                         
                   Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                               
                           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of                                         
                   argued claims 1, 6, 11, 15, and 20 and non-argued claims 7, 9, 12, 13, 16,                                       
                   17, and 21.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                   
                   OBVIOUSNESS DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION                                                                           
                           We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments regarding the                                            
                   Examiner’s obviousness double patenting rejection and find them                                                  
                   unpersuasive for reasons below.                                                                                  
                           Appellant’s claim 20 recites a bearing component comprising a body                                       
                   made of moldable polymeric material including an antimicrobial agent for                                         
                   inhibiting growth of microorganisms (claim 20).                                                                  
                           Ward I, for example, recites in claim 1 “[a] housing for a bearing                                       
                   insert” comprising “moldable polymeric foam” and “an antimicrobial agent”                                        
                   (Ward I, claim 1).  Similarly, in Ward II, for example, claim 1 recites “[a]                                     
                   support housing for a bearing insert” comprising “an admixture of a                                              
                   moldable polymeric material and an antimicrobial agent” (Ward II, claim 1).                                      
                           Therefore, the scope of Appellant’s claim 20 is the same as or broader                                   
                   than the scope of Ward I’s and Ward II’s claims.  Accordingly, we affirm                                         
                   the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-21                                        
                   over Ward I and Ward II.                                                                                         

                                                   ADDITIONAL ISSUES                                                                
                           Dependent claims 2 and 10 have been objected to by the Examiner                                          
                   (Final Office Action, 4).  Dependent claim 19 was originally rejected under                                      

                                                                10                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013