Appeal 2007-0685
Application 10/242,336
main body. As appreciated by the Examiner, MacLeod does not disclose
Appellant’s fluidstatic bearing comprising a fluid inlet which is configured
to stably support the electrode. However, we fully concur with the
Examiner that Lehmann establishes the obviousness of employing such a
fluidstatic bearing to support an electrode in the electromachining of a
workpiece. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to utilize a fluidstatic bearing of the type disclosed by Lehmann to
support the electrode of MacLeod.
The sole argument advanced by Appellant is that since “MacLeod
does not disclose a fluidstatic bearing, then how can MacLeod disclose an
electrolyte inlet of a fluidstatic bearing as claim recites ‘a fluidstatic bearing
comprising . . . an electrolyte inlet?’” (sentence bridging Br. 8-9). However,
as explained by the Examiner, the claimed electrolyte inlet (321), as opposed
to fluid inlet (308) of the fluidstatic bearing, is depicted in Appellant’s
drawings as an opening between workpiece (200) and the bearing (306).
Hence, we agree with the Examiner that MacLeod necessarily has such an
opening or inlet for introducing the electrolyte. As set forth by the
Examiner, MacLeod “does not seal the top surface of the workpiece”
(Answer 9). Moreover, inasmuch as we find that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a fluidstatic bearing
in the apparatus of MacLeod to stabilize the electrode, we find that it would
have been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013