Appeal No. 1999-1170 Page 6
Application No. 08/801,872
Figure 3 coupling the elastomer is bonded to both power transmitting elements, there
would seem to be no need to precompress it, for there is no frictional coupling that would
be enhanced by such action, nor has the examiner provided any other reason why
precompression would be an advantage. In our view, this supports the conclusion that the
elastomer in Figure 3 is not precompressed, and the examiner’s position to the contrary is
in error. This situation is not alleviated by further considering the teachings of Eksergian.
The second deficiency resides in the lack of suggestion to combine the teachings
of Figure 3 and Eksergian in the manner proposed by the examiner, even if we were to
agree that Eksergian teaches it was known to use combinations of bonded and frictional
interfaces between the elastomer components of couplings and their driving and driven
components. The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not make
such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to replace one of the bonded attachments of the elastomer to the drive elements
with a frictional interface, other than the hindsight afforded one who first viewed the
appellant’s disclosure. We reach this conclusion because such a modification would
significantly alter the structure and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007