Ex Parte Mockridge et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 15, 201712707504 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/707,504 02/17/2010 Richard Iain Mockridge 424662030800 2654 25227 7590 02/17/2017 MORRTSON fr FOFRSTFR T T P EXAMINER 1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD SEABE, JUSTIN D SUITE 400 MCLEAN, VA 22102 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): EOfficeVA @ mofo.com PatentDocket @ mofo. com pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD IAIN MOCKRIDGE, STEPHEN GREETHAM, and MATTHEW JOHN CHILDE Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard Iain Mockridge et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5—7 and 19, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Dyson Technology Limited. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim is reproduced below and is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal. 1. A rotor assembly comprising a shaft to which are mounted an impeller, a rotor core and a bearing cartridge, the bearing cartridge being mounted between the impeller and the rotor core and comprising a pair of bearings, a spring disposed between the pair of bearings for applying a preload to each of the bearings and a sleeve surrounding the bearings, wherein the sleeve has a coefficient of thermal expansion substantially matching that of the shaft, the sleeve is formed of a non-magnetic material, and the shaft is formed of a soft magnetic material. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Takenaka Osterstrom Schuetz Tanaka Okayama US 4,426,089 US 4,806,075 US 5,069,603 US 6,271,612 B1 US 2006/0023981 A1 Jan. 17, 1984 Feb. 21, 1989 Dec. 3, 1991 Aug. 7, 2001 Feb. 2, 2006 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1,3,6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, and Tanaka. Non-Final Act. 3-6. II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Osterstrom. Id. at 6. III. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Takenaka. Id. at 6—7. 2 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Schuetz teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 1, except for “teaching] the material of the shaft and sleeve.” Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner first turns to Okayama2 and finds that it teaches that “it is known to utilize a shaft and a bearing sleeve that are different materials from one another yet have the same rate of thermal expansion” so that “the bearing gap between the sleeve and shaft . . . doesn’t become too large or too narrow, which would put the shaft in a ‘locked’ state or deteriorate the rotation precision.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Okayama 1 5). The Examiner finds that even though Okayama relates to a “dynamic gas bearing,” it is “the equivalent... of the mechanical ball bearings utilized in Schuetz.” Id. at 4. With respect to the specific materials taught by Okayama, the Examiner finds that Okayama teaches that the shaft can be made of stainless steel, and the sleeve can be made of copper or a ceramic, such as zirconia. Id. The Examiner additionally turns to Tanaka, finding that it teaches that “any sort of stainless steel may be utilized for the shaft, including soft and hard magnetic materials, or even non-magnetic materials].” Id. at 4 (citing 2 The Examiner’s reliance on Okayama is due to the Examiner’s decision to provide “additional art to further prove th[e] point” that “materials [of the shaft and sleeve] do not necessarily need to be made of the same material, just materials that share the same (or substantially the same) thermal expansion coefficients.” Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner provided this additional art in response to Appellants’ argument that Shirotori (US 4,984,909, iss. Jan. 15, 1991), which was previously relied on by the Examiner, teaches a preference that the materials of the shaft and sleeve be the same. Id. 3 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 Tanaka, 9:20—35). The Examiner finds that it “is known in the art [that] . . . hard, soft, and non-magnetic materials can be chosen in order to optimize a path for . . . the magnetic flux to travel; whether that involves utilizing soft magnetic/non-magnetic materials to prevent short-circuiting, decreasing the reluctance, or increasing the reluctance.” Id. (citing US 2010/0148600, pub. June 17, 2010) (hereinafter referred to as “Bauer”). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “utiliz[e] materials [for Schuetz’s shaft and bearing sleeve] that are substantially matching in thermal expansion rates as taught by Okayama for the purposes of keeping the assembly stable and preventing the shaft from being thermally deformed.” Id. The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “utilize[e] a soft magnetic material [for the shaft] as taught by Tanaka for the purposes of optimizing the path of least reluctance for the magnetic circuit.” Id. at 5. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to utilize materials that have the same thermal expansion coefficient for the shaft and sleeve of Schuetz based on the teachings of Okayama because “Schuetz does not disclose any ... air gap whose width is susceptible to variance from thermal expansions of the shaft and sleeve” and “the mechanical bearings of Schuetz always maintain a certain width from support from the inner sleeves and other supporting structures in the bearing cartridge.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellants elaborate that “the mechanical balls of Schuetz can maintain a substantially constant volume and width, irrespective of the expansion that the neighboring surfaces such as the shaft and sleeve might undergo from a rise in temperature,” especially considering that that 4 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 “thermal expansion occurs only in the order of micrometers” and that Schuetz’s mechanical bearings “do not have the same ‘locked’ bearing problem” as Okayama’s gas bearings. Reply Br. 5, 6. Appellants also argue that Schuetz’s bearings are unlikely to “run into a lock problem because they are already lubricated to minimize the friction with the rotating shaft.” Id. at 5. We note that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is based on keeping the assembly stable and preventing the shaft from being thermally deformed (Non-Final Act. 4), not “maintain[ing] [a] constant air gap width between the shaft and sleeve,” which is indeed a “problem specific to . . . gas bearings,” as suggested by Appellants (Reply Br. 4). In other words, even if Appellants may have explained why Okayama’s teachings regarding maintaining a constant air gap width are irrelevant to mechanical bearings, Appellants have not persuasively explained why Okayama’s teaching of using materials having the same thermal expansion coefficient is irrelevant to the Examiner’s stated reasoning of preventing thermal deformation of the shaft and providing stability to the bearing assembly. The Examiner maintains that “[i]f the bearings and their respective rings and/or sleeve expanded faster/slower than the shaft, th[e] problem [of shaft lock-up] would still exist as the shaft wouldn’t be able to turn” and that shaft lock-up “could deform and damage the shaft and . . . render it unstable.” Ans. 7. However, even assuming arguendo that Schuetz’s mechanical bearings may not be as susceptible to the problem of shaft lock-up as gas bearings are, this does not persuade us that the Examiner’s stated reasoning based on preventing the shaft from being thermally 5 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 deformed and keeping the assembly stable (Non-Final Act. 4) lacks rational underpinnings. As to this stated reasoning in particular, Appellants argue it lacks rational underpinnings because Schuetz’s device already achieves these purposes through housing 1. Appeal Br. 7. More particularly, Appellants argue that “bearings 11,12 and . . . shaft 6 are aligned and fixed by . . . housing 1 ” and that “a width and shape of the mechanical bearings of Schuetz would not easily be threatened by mere thermal expansions of the shaft and sleeve.” Id. The Examiner responds that Appellants’ arguments are merely conclusory, and lack evidence to support that housing 1 would prevent deformation. Ans. 7. The Examiner also responds that the bearings are not located in direct contact with the housing, but are contained within a bearing cartridge as illustrated in the embodiment of Figure 2. Id. The Examiner asserts that “the bearings, sleeve[,] and shaft could expand at different rates of thermal expansion, leading to shaft lock up and degradation.” Id. at 7-8. We agree with the Examiner’s response. Despite the differences between gas bearings and mechanical bearings identified by Appellants, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a benefit in maintaining the same thermal expansion coefficient for various parts of the assembly in order to promote stability of the assembly. The rationale to support a modification of the prior art need not be expressly stated in the prior art and can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144(1) and cases cited therein. The Examiner points to Shirotori (US 4,907,897, iss. Mar. 13, 1990) to support that it was known in the art that using materials having substantially the same thermal expansion 6 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 coefficient for the shaft, bearings, and bearing holder keeps the assembly stable and substantially prevents thermal deformation of the shaft. Non- Final Act. 5 (citing Shirotori, 1:66—68, 3:15—18). Even if mechanical bearings are not as susceptible to thermal expansion as gas bearings, this does not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from being led to seek to further improve the stabilization of mechanical bearings by selecting materials having substantially the same thermal expansion coefficients for the shaft and sleeve, a concept known to those of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Shirotori. Moreover, Okayama also supports that one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to utilize materials that are different, yet have substantially the same thermal expansion coefficient, for a shaft and bearing sleeve in order to prevent shaft deformation and promote stability. Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971). As such, we disagree with Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 4) in reaching the determination of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Appellants also argue that “[tjhere is no evidence cited by the [EJxaminer that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have identified th[e] problem [of preventing application of undue or uneven loading on the bearings, as identified by Appellants in the Specification], much less come up with the unique solution provided by . . . [AJppellants.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it is immaterial if the modification of Schuetz to utilize certain materials having certain properties 7 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 for the shaft and sleeve is for a different reason than one advocated by Appellants, so long as the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (“Although the motivation to combine here differs from that of the applicant, the motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.”)). Appellants also argue that Schuetz teaches away from replacing the ceramic material of its bearing sleeve with other materials that have higher operation temperatures and rates of thermal conduction. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants point out Schuetz’s disclosure that acknowledges the advantages of ceramic bearings over conventional steel bearings. Id. at 8—10 (citing Schuetz, 1:15—33,46—68; 1:51—2:8). The Examiner responds that the rejection is not based on replacing the bearing sleeve with a material that is not ceramic. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner which is not based on modifying the sleeve to be a material other than ceramic, but on utilizing materials having the same thermal expansion coefficient for the sleeve and shaft (in which the sleeve can be a zirconium ceramic in accordance with the teachings of Okayama). In the Reply Brief, Appellants elaborate that because the bearings are ceramic, one of ordinary skill in the art would also make “as many neighboring surfaces as possible with which the bearings come into contact” out of ceramic as well (Reply Br. 15—16 (citing Schuetz, 3:35—4:14)), and it thus, would have been too restrictive to one of ordinary skill in the art to find 8 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 ceramic materials that are non-magnetic for the sleeve and soft magnetic for the shaft that then also have a substantially identical thermal expansion coefficient (id. at 16). We are not persuaded by this argument as Appellants do not offer any evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily make all other neighboring surfaces out of ceramic. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence”) (citation omitted). Moreover, the Examiner’s rejection relies on Okayama, which already teaches a zirconium ceramic for the sleeve. As to the material of the shaft, the Examiner relies on Tanaka to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to make the shaft out of a soft magnetic material, and Appellants do not persuasively address the Examiner’s reasoning to do so. Appellants further argue that Okayama “teaches away from forming the shaft and sleeve from materials having different magnetic properties but still having substantially the same thermal expansion coefficients.” Reply Br. 8. More particularly, Appellants argue that Okayama teaches that forming the shaft and sleeve from materials having the same thermal expansion coefficients “significantly restricts the range of materials that can be used to form the shaft and sleeve.” Id. at 9-10 (citing Okayama Tflf 6—12). Appellants continue that Okayama explains how to form the shaft and sleeve of materials having different thermal expansion coefficients, but still maintaining a constant gap width for the gas bearings. Id. at 11 (citing Okayama Tflf 32—33, claim 1). Appellants add that Okayama also teaches that the thermal expansion coefficient of the sleeve should be greater than that of the shaft—i.e., different thermal expansion coefficients for the shaft and sleeve. Id. (citing Okayama 19). 9 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 “Although a reference that teaches away is a significant factor to be considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Where the prior art contains ‘apparently conflicting’ teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered ‘for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill. . . considering] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.’” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Here, artisans seeking to improve the art of rotor assemblies, on learning from Okayama that using materials for the sleeve and shaft that have the same thermal expansion coefficient may unduly restrict the number of available materials (Okayama Tflf 6—12), might well be led to not so restrict themselves and try to find a way to use materials having different thermal expansion coefficients. However, Okayama also teaches that materials having the same thermal expansion coefficient are usable and have been used for Appellants’ purpose.3 Appellants do not explain how their 3 A known or obvious system does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other system for the same use. See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. In Gurley, the invention was a printed circuit material that included a substrate material made of a nonwoven web impregnated with epoxy and that was bendable and shape retaining. Id. at 552. The Yamaguchi reference disclosed a printed circuit material having a fibrous substrate impregnated with a polyester-imide resin (rather than epoxy), noting that epoxy-impregnated fibrous substrate were inferior to circuit boards made with the polyester-imide resins. Id. at 552—53. The court noted that Yamaguchi taught that epoxy had been used for Gurley’s purpose, that Gurley did not distinguish his epoxy product from that 10 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 claimed invention goes beyond what was already known to the art of rotor assemblies as acknowledged in Okayama. On these facts, Appellants’ teaching away argument is insufficient to establish patentability. Even reading Okayama’s description as discouraging use of materials with the same thermal expansion coefficient due to its limiting effect on the number of available materials, Appellants’ claims recite no discovery beyond what was known to the art. See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. Moreover, that the benefits gained by using materials having the same thermal expansion coefficient—i.e., decreased shaft deformation and increased stability—may come at the cost of having only a limited number of available materials should not nullify the benefits as a basis to modify Schuetz. One of ordinary skill in the art could see the benefits in using materials having the same thermal expansion coefficient as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Shirotori and as recognized by Okayama. In the minds of at least some artisans, the benefits may outweigh the disadvantage of having a more limited number of available materials. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has failed to provide a reason with rational underpinning for modifying Schuetz in view of Okayama. Appellants also argue that “none of the references actually discloses forming the sleeve from a non-magnetic material and the shaft from a soft magnetic material, as claimed.” Reply Br. 8. More particularly, Appellants described by Yamaguchi, and that Gurley did not offer specific epoxies or improved properties. Id. at 553. The court stated that “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known to the art.” Id. 11 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 argue that the Examiner has not shown which material disclosed in Okayama corresponds to the claimed soft-magnetic material of the shaft or the non-magnetic material of the sleeve. Id. at 13. However, the Examiner has found that Okayama teaches that the shaft can be made of stainless steel and modified to specifically be a soft magnetic stainless steel. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner has also found that the sleeve can be made of copper or a ceramic, such as zirconia. Id. Although Appellants assert that “ceramic materials can be magnetic” (Reply Br. 13), Appellants do not provide evidence as to whether or not zirconia ceramic (the ceramic specifically mentioned in Okayama) is magnetic. As to Appellants’ argument that Okayama “is completely silent on the different choice of materials . . . based on different magnetic properties of materials” {id.), it is irrelevant whether Okayama recognizes the magnetic properties of the materials so long as the magnetic properties are inherent. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Because ‘sufficient aeration’ was inherent in the prior art, it is irrelevant that the prior art did not recognize the key aspect of [the] invention. . . . An inherent structure, composition, or function is not necessarily known.”). As explained above, the Examiner has explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to arrive at a rotor assembly in which the sleeve is non-magnetic (zirconia ceramic) and the shaft is soft-magnetic (stainless steel selected to be a soft-magnetic material), with the materials having substantially the same thermal expansion coefficient based on the combined teachings of Schuetz, Okayama, and Tanaka. Appellants further argue that “Tanaka does not disclose using a specifically non-magnetic material for the sleeve and soft magnetic material 12 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 for the shaft” and does not “disclose choosing different materials for the shaft and sleeve based on different magnetic properties of materials.” Reply Br. 13. As stated earlier, the rationale to support a modification of the prior art need not be expressly stated in the prior art and can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner has found that it is known in the art to use soft magnetic materials to prevent short-circuiting and increase the reluctance (Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Bauer)). Appellants have not persuasively demonstrated error in the Examiner’s finding that the rationale of optimizing the path of least reluctance for the magnetic circuit by making the shaft of soft magnetic material {id. at 5) is based on knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Bauer and further supported by Tanaka. As to Tanaka’s purported failure to teach a non-magnetic material for the sleeve and/or substantially matching thermal expansion coefficients for the shaft and sleeve (Reply Br. 14), these arguments do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner which uses Tanaka only in connection with selecting the material of the shaft to be a soft magnetic material (Non-Final Act. 4—5). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that Schuetz, Okayama, and Tanaka renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over these references. We also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, and 7, which depend therefrom, and for which Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. 13 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 Rejection II Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Osterstrom. Non-Final Act. 6. Appellants’ arguments in support of the patentability of claim 5 relate to the perceived deficiencies in the combination of Schuetz, Okayama, and Tanaka. Appeal Br. 10. Because we have found no such deficiencies in the combination, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Osterstrom. Rejection III Dependent claim 19 recites that “the rotor assembly comprises a dirt cap that covers an annular gap in the bearing adjacent the rotor core, the dirt cap being secured to the shaft and comprising a flange that extends radially outward from the shaft to cover the annular gap.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges that Schuetz fails to teach a dirt cap, but finds that Takenaka teaches dirt cap 20 which is attached to shaft 1, covers an annular gap, and has a flange extending radially outward from shaft 1 to cover the gap. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Takenaka, 2:40-67, 3:1—17). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “utilize[e] a dirt cap adjacent the rotor core secured to the shaft as taught by Takenaka to prevent dust or dirt from entering the bearing assembly.” Id. at 7 (citing Dickey (US 2,908,536, iss. Oct. 13, 1959)). Appellants argue that Takenaka’s dirt cap “does not ‘cover an annular gap in the bearing adjacent the rotor core.’” Appeal Br. 11. More specifically, Appellants argue that Takenaka’s shaft “is not used in the 14 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 context of a rotor assembly that includes a rotor core (e.g., a motor), an impeller[,] and a bearing cartridge in between.” Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument in that the rejection relies on Takenaka only for the dirt cap, and relies on the combination of Schuetz, Okayama, and Tanaka for the rotor core, impeller, and bearing cartridge. See Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 8 (Examiner responding that “Schuetz already teaches the rotor core (13) and is missing a dirt cap to protect the bearing cartridge.”). Appellants further argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Schuetz to include a dirt cap to cover any annular gap in the bearing adjacent the rotor core because “[fjluid does not enter through the bearing cartridge in Schuetz. Id. at 12. The Examiner responds that “[tjhere are gaps in S[c]huetz where dust or dirt is capable of entering the bearing cartridge,” and “[t]he direction of the fluid flow does not change the fact that dust or dirt could enter the cartridge,” especially considering the embodiment of Figure 2. Ans. 9. The Examiner further points to Dickey as evidencing that “keeping dirt or dust out of bearing cartridges is a known problem to be solved.” Id. In reply, Appellants argue that Schuetz’s bearings 11,12 “are already covered by the annular oil reservoirs 33 and 34, which are closed by the caps 28 and 29, as shown ... in FIG. 2,” and so the bearings in Schuetz do “not directly abut to the outside” and are sufficiently covered by oil reservoirs 33, 34 to keep dust out of bearings 11, 12. Reply Br. 18, 19, 20 (citing Schuetz, 3:35—44) (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue that spindle sleeve 23 further “encases the entire bearing assembly from start to end, including the 15 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 bearings, oil reservoirs, and inner sleeves [that] already keep[] the dust out of the bearings 11 and 12.” Id. at 20. We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning lacks rational underpinnings. Although Schuetz’s annular grease reservoirs 33, 34 may tend to keep dust and dirt out of bearings 11,12 when caps 28, 29 (which house “[ljargely closed” grease reservoirs 33, 34) are firmly fixed by clamp rings 31,32, there is a clear path along the shaft 6 past the caps to the races and the rolling members. Accordingly, we agree there are gaps in which dust or dirt is capable of entering the bearing cartridge as asserted by the Examiner. See Ans. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Takenaka renders obvious the subject matter of claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Takenaka. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,3,6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, and Tanaka is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Osterstrom is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schuetz, Okayama, Tanaka, and Takenaka is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). 16 Appeal 2014-009660 Application 12/707,504 AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation