Ex Parte Fisher - Page 6

            Appeal 2007-0387                                                                          
            Application 09/756,688                                                                    

        1                                    ANALYSIS                                                 
        2        Appellant’s chief argument with respect to the claims on appeal is found in          
        3   the first full paragraph on page 8 of the substitute Appeal Brief.  The argument is       
        4   that Lovell illustrates a bushing and not a bearing.  Appellant further argues that       
        5   the bushing cannot be in rotational communication between the housing and the             
        6   propeller shaft as recited in paragraph c of the independent claim 40, and that           
        7   Lovell is unsuitable for a mud motor.                                                     
        8        Taking the last argument first, we note that the independent claims 40 and           
        9   46 are simply not directed to a mud motor.  A mud motor is not mentioned; a mud           
       10   motor is not even implied.                                                                
       11        With respect to rotational communication, this argument is also                      
       12   unconvincing.  The inner part or rubber insert 44 is contacted by the rotating            
       13   propeller shaft 16 while the outer part of the bearing, whether it be the bronze outer    
       14   shell 42 or  the inner bearing 30, contacts the bearing assembly 10 and does not          
       15   rotate.  This is exactly the same relationship as Appellants disclosed ball, roller, or   
       16   needle bearings.  The inner part of the bearing contacts the rotating shaft and the       
       17   outer part contacts the housing the bearing is installed in.                              
       18        We acknowledge that claim limitations are given their broadest reasonable            
       19   interpretation consistent with the Appellant’s Specification.  We further                 
       20   acknowledge that Appellant’s Specification does distinguish between bearings and          
       21   bushings (Specification at 3).  Appellant states that in the prior art “bushings made     
       22   from brass [bronze] or the like have been most commonly used.”  Next, Appellant           
       23   discusses roller or ball bearing which are said to rapidly use grease or other            
       24   lubricants which leads to early bearing failure.  While this paragraph does mention       
       25   roller or ball bearing, in no way does this paragraph state that the term “bearing” is    
       26   restricted to roller, ball, or needle bearings, and it leaves open the possibility that   

                                                  6                                                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013