Appeal 2007-1792
Application 10/050,834
because there are no limitations of the disputed claims directed to “using the
pressure of lubricating grease to maintain the ball in the housing.”
Appellant further argues that one of skill in the art would not combine
Mizusawa and Edwards, because Mizusawa teaches a ball joint that has its major
parts manufactured from plastic and claims the use of plastic in certain parts (Br.
4). Appellant incorrectly asserts that Mizusawa teaches ball joints predominantly
used in gas-spring joints in the rear doors of automobiles (Id.). The passage cited
by Appellant, (Mizusawa, col. 1, ll. 62-64), is actually in the background of the
invention section and refers to prior art ball joints made with plastic sockets, which
frequently led to accidental separation of the balls from their plastic sockets
(Mizusawa, col. 1, l. 55 – col. 2, l. 4). Mizusawa does teach making the main body
of the socket out of plastic, (Mizusawa, col. 2, ll. 23-27), but the teaching that
plastic sockets are prone to separation would lead one of skill in the art to consider
other materials, including metal, for applications in which the brittleness of plastic
sockets would not perform acceptably for the given application as Appellant argues
is the case for automobile suspension systems. Thus, Mizusawa does not teach
away from the use of metal in a ball and socket arrangement for applications where
the strength of metal is needed. One of skill in the art would know that if metal
parts are substituted for plastic to meet strength requirements, which is a matter of
design choice, lubrication would be needed. Moreover, the material of the various
parts is not a claim limitation of the disputed claims.
The Examiner correctly found that all of the limitations of claim 1 are shown
in Mizusawa except a means for lubricating, which is found in Edwards. One of
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013