Appeal No. 2006-1815
Application No. 10/178,767
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed March 17,
2005) and reply brief (filed July 27, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s above-noted
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner’s basic position concerning the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11 and 12
is set forth on pages 2-4 of the final rejection and pages 3-9 of the answer.
Essentially, the examiner is of the view that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to use two pins, spaced
at equiangular intervals in a circumferential direction, to fix each of the thrust
washers seen at either side of the cam (17) in Figures 1 and 2 of Shinohara within
their respective washer chambers, as taught by Higginbotham “as a matter of
engineering expediency” (final rejection, pages 3-4). In reaching this conclusion,
the examiner has determined that there is inherently a clearance gap between an
outer circumference of the washer and an inner circumference of the washer
chamber such that the washer is subject to movement within the washer chamber
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007