Appeal 2007-1376
Application 10/677,870
slinger is made from a metal plate, and does not disclose that the amount of
elastic deformation of the second seal lip . . . is at least 1/10 and up to 7/10
the height of the second seal lip in a free state, and does not disclose that the
roughness of a section of the outer peripheral surface of the outer-diameter-
side cylindrical section . . .” (final Office Action 7 and 8). Also, Appellants
have not contested the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the slinger of JP ‘396 from
a metal plate and to impart the claimed roughness to the outer peripheral
surface of the outer-diameter-side cylindrical section.
The sole argument advanced by Appellants is that the Examiner has
improperly relied upon the drawings of Takenaka, Repella, and Johnen,
which are not disclosed as drawn to scale, for the obviousness of the recited
elastic deformation of the second seal lip. In the words of Appellants, “it is
apparent that the Examiner’s conclusions relating to the alleged deformation
percentages are based solely by measuring the drawing features [and] [i]n
fact, the text of each reference does not disclose that the drawings are to
scale, and is silent as to dimensions” (Br. 8, second para.). Appellants
conclude that “[s]ince it has not been shown that the cited references teach
or suggest that the amount of elastic deformation of the second seal lip is at
least 1/10 and up to 7/10, the obviousness rejection is improper” (Br. 9,
penultimate para.).
We agree with the Examiner that it is not necessary for a finding of
obviousness under § 103 that it be established on the record that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013