Appeal 2007-1549
Application 10/632,017
arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed August 31, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
January 11, 2007).
OPINION
The anticipation rejection based on Yao
Appellants argue all the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
together as a group. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the representative claim to
decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection, with claims 5, 9-10, 12, 14,
17, 20, 23 and 29 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner explains where the elements of claim 1 are disclosed in
Yao by labelling them in the marked-up Figure 3 of Yao appended to the
Examiner’s Answer and Appellants do not dispute these findings. The
Examiner found that Yao discloses a seal structure of a dust cover for a ball
joint including, a ball pivot (ball stud 2) with a joint ball (spherical head 4)
inserted into a housing (6) holding a bearing shell (bearing 5), a sealing
bellows (dust cover 8) having a pivot-side edge area (annular fitting rings
23), a ball race (ring collar 13) fixed to the ball pivot (2) and, a sliding ring
(A1, as labelled by the Examiner) having an axial leg (A50, as labelled by
the Examiner) and a radial leg (A51, as labelled by the Examiner). The joint
ball (4) is pivotally mounted in all directions in the bearing shell (5).
Appellants’ arguments as to why Yao does not anticipate claim 1 is
that Yao does not show: (1) a sliding ring that is mounted to slide in the ball
race (App. Br. 6); (2) a ball race having a leg that is in contact with the
sliding ring with the leg comprising lugs arranged at spaced locations from
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013