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 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013