Appeal No. 2000-1240
Application 09/094,067
It is precisely because there is no written description of
the exact manner in which the disk 18 is affixed to the rotor 9
in Obara, but the drawings clearly show such, that we conclude
that the artisan is well aware that the disk 18 must be affixed
to the rotor 9 during operation for Obara's invention to work.
Appellant even recognizes this at page 8 of the brief where he
indicates that it "is well known in the art that there must be
some means for attaching the disk to the rotor." We do not agree
with appellant's view expressed at the bottom of page 8 of the
brief that Obara likely intends that a conventional ring clamp be
applied since this is mere speculation by appellant.
In light of this analysis, we agree with the examiner's view
quoted earlier and expressed at page 6 of the answer that Obara
essentially illustrates a friction/interference fit. This
analysis is still consistent with an anticipatory rejection
within 35 U.S.C. § 102. The rule that anticipation requires that
every element of a claim appears in a single reference
accommodates situations where the common knowledge of
“technologists” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where
technical facts are known to those in the field of the invention.
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007