Appeal No. 2003-1303 9
Application No. 09/351,166
the art in view of Parviainen’s teachings to modify Hakala’s drilling apparatus to
comprise
a support device coupled to the drilling apparatus, which is adapted to
press against the cylinder to be drilled, whereby tangential forces are
exerted on the adjacent cylinder by the drilling arrangement . . . in order to
increase the usability for the Hakala’s et al.’s device for drilling on the
cylinders disposed at offset positions. [Answer, page 7.]
For the reasons that follow, we do not agree. First, it is debatable whether
Parviainen’s drill supporting structures (elements 21A, 23A, 27, etc.) exert a tangential
force on the adjacent cylinders 10, as required by the claims. In this regard, the
examiner’s statement (answer, page 10) that Parviainen’s support structure is oriented
to have a drilling direction parallel to the tangential direction of the adjacent cylinder
does not suffice because a force parallel to a tangential direction is not the same as a
tangential force exerted on that cylinder.3 Second, the examiner’s nebulous motivation
for the proposed modification (“to increase the usability for the Hakala’s et al.’s device
for drilling on the cylinders disposed at offset positions”) does not appear to be founded
on any clear teaching in either of the applied references and strikes us as being based
on hindsight. Third, it is not clear precisely how the examiner proposes to modify
Hakala in view of Parviainen’s teachings. Fourth, based on Parviainen’s express
teaching (col. 1, line 28, through col. 2, line 27) that the drill support arrangement
3For example, a radial force directed through the center of a cylinder is parallel to
a tangent line of the cylinder, but certainly is not a tangential force exerted on that
cylinder.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007