Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
obviousness establish by the combined teachings of the two
references. While we agree with the examiner’s conclusion, we
focus upon Gumkowski as being the closest prior art.
Although there are two declarations of record, the
evidence provided in both is described in the latter one. The
words of the declarant on page 2 of the second declaration
summarize the tests and the results:
This first test [reported initially in the earlier
declaration] compared the wobble force, wobble 1
angle, and wobble time required to achieve an anti-
rotation connection between: (a) an initially round
pin and a retaining spring having a square hole
(representative of the claimed invention); and (b)
an initially D-shaped pin and a retaining spring
having a D-shaped opening (representative of the
‘037 patent). As discussed again below, the brake
shoe representative of the ‘037 patent required a
greater wobble force, at a greater wobble angle, for
a longer wobble time to attain the same level of
torsion resistance as that of the brake shoe
representative of the claimed invention. The second
test, newly disclosed below, compares the torsion
strength required to rotate a retaining spring
relative to a pad back for both: (a) an initially
round pin and a retaining spring having a square
hole (representative of the claimed invention); and
(b) an initially D-shaped pin and a retaining spring
having a D-shaped opening (representative of the
‘037 patent). The second test revealed that a
significantly higher torsion force was required to
rotate the retaining spring of the claimed invention
than that of the ‘037 patent, even though
1Riveting.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007