Appeal No. 2003-0190
Application No. 08/515,964
Takano application which matured into a patent was filed nearly
four years after the filing of Appellants’ application.
Appellants could not have included the Takano patent claims,
directed to an engine accessory drive mounting arrangement, in
their application since they did not invent such subject matter.
Further, it is apparent from the record before us that Appellants
are not responsible for the fact that the Takano claims, which
included Appellants’ claimed bearing cap carried timing sensor
feature in the larger combination of an engine accessory mounting
structure, issued before their application. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 on the basis of obvious
double patenting is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 based on Klauber, we do not sustain
this rejection as well. After careful review of the applied
Klauber reference, in light of the arguments of record, we are in
general agreement with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since Klauber does
not teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim
1. In particular, we are in agreement with Appellants (Brief,
page 5) that, in contrast to the claimed timing sensor, the
sensor 24 in Klauber which is carried by a bearing cap is a shaft
-7–7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007