Appeal No. 1999-1170 Page 7
Application No. 08/801,872
operation of the Figure 3 coupling for no apparent reason, which would operate as a
disincentive to the artisan to make the proposed change.
Finally, we find no basis for concluding that the stated relationship between the
magnitude of the design torque level of the drive coupling and the radial spring rate of the
elastomer component would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice
resulting from routine experimentation. None of the applied prior art references voices a
concern for the problem solved by the appellant’s invention, so there would appear to be
no reason to experiment with radial spring rate in the first place, much less select the range
required by the claim after doing so.
It is our opinion that the applied references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim 1, and we will
not sustain the rejection. It follows the rejection of dependent claims 2, and 6-10 also is not
sustained.
Independent claim 11 sets forth the invention in somewhat different terms, in that
rather than relate the elastomer member to the coupling in terms of radial spring rate vs.
magnitude of coupling design torque, it establishes the characteristics of the elastomer
member in terms of precompressing it to a particular level to accomplish specific results.
For essentially the same reasons as were expressed above with regard to claim 1, we
conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with regard to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007