Appeal No. 2005-0118
Application 10/094,413
exercise in hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention
based on appellant’s own teachings, and also runs contrary to the
disclosure in Hudson (col. 1, lines 58-68) that chain drives,
e.g., like that seen in Rauch for driving the rollers (33, 34) on
the fixed frame (12), are to be avoided in favor of the use of a
light-weight hydraulic rotary motor (56) co-axial with each
roller and mounted within the roller structure. Contrary to the
examiner’s apparent belief, the mere fact that Hudson may embody
a concept involving the use of two pivoted engaging arms, two
drive systems, and two rams, in and of itself, provides no
motivation or suggestion for drastically structurally modifying
the particular type of power wrench seen in Rauch in the manner
urged by the examiner.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in the Rauch and Hudson patents would not have made the
subject matter as a whole of claims 1 and 2 on appeal obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007