10473223 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2008)

Ex Parte Leimann

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 30, 2008

10473223 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DIRK-OLAF LEIMANN ____________ Appeal 2007-3215 Application 10/473,223 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: January 30, 2008 ____________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and DAVID B. WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges. PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 6, 15-17, and 19. Claims 2-4, 10, 12-13, and 20 are indicated as directed to allowable subject matter. Claims 21 and 22 stand allowed. Claims 5, 7-9, and 11 stand withdrawn from Appeal 2007-3215 Application 10/473,223 2 consideration. Claims 14 and 18 have been canceled. These are all the claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The claimed invention is directed to a mounting for a roller bearing assembly. The mounting is provided in a tubular housing which has a selected profile mounting the outer race of the roller bearing to allow for vertical and sideways deflection of the bearing in response to shaft loading. Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A roller bearing assembly comprising an outer ring supported in a tubular housing formation associated with the wall of a housing and extending for at least the axial length of the outer ring as considered in an axial direction substantially coincident with the rotational axis of the bearing, wherein said tubular housing formation provides a resistance to radial movement of the outer ring which is greater at one axial end of the outer ring than at the other axial end of the outer ring and said tubular housing formation is provided with selective profiling allowing the tubular housing formation vertical and sideways deflection in consequence of shaft loading. The reference of record relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness is: Klusman 4,509,804 Apr. 9, 1985 Claims 1, 6, 15-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Klusman in view of official notice of common knowledge in the art. Appeal 2007-3215 Application 10/473,223 3 OPINION We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. As result of this review, it is our conclusion that the Examiner has not established the prima facie obviousness of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow. The following are our findings of fact with regard to the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter. Klusman shows a ball bearing assembly wherein outer race 22 is supported in a tubular housing formation 26. We are in agreement with the Examiner that the tubular housing formation provides resistance to radial movement of the ring which is greater on the inner end or the right most end of the outer race of the ball bearing than on the outer end or left most edge of the race of the ball bearing. We agree that this is so because of the cantilever or beam-like nature of the tube 26. The claims further require providing the tubular housing formation with selected profiling which allows vertical and sideways deflection as a consequence of shaft loading. At page 3 of the Answer, in lines 14-16, the Examiner identifies the selective profiling of Klusman as the tubular housing formation and/or the retaining lip near reference numeral 28. We have looked in vain on tube 26 to find a structure that might correspond to Appellant’s claimed selective profiling. The tube of Klusman appears as a smooth, cylindrical tube with a retaining lip which retains the ball bearing in place and does not contribute to allowing vertical and Appeal 2007-3215 Application 10/473,223 4 sideways deflection as a consequence of shaft loading. Accordingly, we find ourselves in agreement with the Appellant that Klusman does not possess Appellant’s claimed selective profiling, and we are constrained to reverse the obviousness rejection made by the Examiner. We note the Examiner’s comment that the term “selective profiling” is effectively meaningless. On the contrary, while this claim term may be broad, a structure that in some manner distinguishes a simple tubular housing formation and that performs this function must be found in, or rendered obvious by, the prior art in order to sustain a rejection under § 103. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The rejection of claims 1, 6, 15-17, and 19 under § 103 of the Patent Act is reversed. REVERSED jlb Young & Thompson 745 South 23rd Street 2nd Floor Arlington, VA 22202