Appeal No. 2002-0986 Page 8
Application No. 09/222,282
worm gear arrangement as taught by Kanbar. Even if a one-way clutch were used with
such an arrangement, the motivation to operably secure such a clutch to the worm shaft
as called for in claim 1 rather than, for example, coupled directly to the motor would
appear to stem merely from hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellants'
disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the teachings of Bailey and Kanbar
are insufficient to have suggested the subject matter of claim 1 so as to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we shall not sustain the examiner’s
rejection.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007