Appeal 2007-1549
Application 10/632,017
discloses a ball race (13) including a leg (15) having four equally spaced-
apart lugs (28), wherein an axial leg (A51) of sliding ring (A1) is in contact
with leg (flange 15) of the ball race (13) (Ans. 8 and figs. 3-4 of Yao). The
Examiner also describes a “sliding face A9 facing the joint ball 4 arranged
adjacent to the ball race 13” (Ans. 4 and 11). We agree with the Examiner.
While the sliding face (A9, as labelled by the Examiner) does not contact the
ball race 13, the term “adjacent,” ordinarily understood to mean “not distant”
or “nearby” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Ed. 1997)),
does not require contact.
In light of the above, Appellants’ arguments do not demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5,
9-10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 23 and 29, which stand or fall with independent claim
1, as anticipated by Yao. Accordingly, the rejection is sustained.
The obviousness rejection based on Yao and Gardner
Claims 30 and 31depend from claim 1 and further require that the
sliding ring have a radial leg in sliding contact with an inner surface of the
ball race. Yao discloses that the axial leg (A50), but not the radial leg
(A51), is in contact with an inner surface of the ball race (13) (Ans. 12).
Gardner shows a ball and joint seal including an L-shaped sliding ring
(section 27) having a radial leg (bottom flange 30) in contact with an inner
surface of a ball race (section 26) (figs. 2 and 3 of Gardner). Gardner also
discloses that bellows (leather jacket 19) “fits snugly but rotatably” between
sliding ring (27) and ball race (26) (Gardner, p. 1, col. 2, ll. 35-40), hence
allowing for rotation of the bellows (jacket 19) between the ball race (26)
and the sliding ring (27). The Examiner finds that the arrangement of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013