Appeal 2007-0422
Application 09/943,685
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Final Rejection (mailed September 2, 2004) and Answer (mailed June 2,
2005). Appellants present opposing arguments in the Brief (filed August 21,
2006) and Reply Brief (filed August 2, 2005).
THE ISSUE
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the combined teachings
of Walters and Ferguson would have suggested a drive shaft assembly as
recited in claim 1 having a joint component of a universal joint that is
rotatable through “a specified range of free-motion rotation without torque
transmission” as called for in claim 1. Appellants contend that Ferguson,
relied upon by the Examiner for a teaching of a joint component rotatable
through “a specified range of free-motion rotation without torque
transmission,” does not teach such (Br. 5 and Reply Br. 2).
FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1. Walters appears to show a universal joint on either end of telescopic
drive shaft 42 interconnecting the telescopic drive shaft 42 to the power
take-off (PTO) shaft 18 of tractor 10 and the input shaft 44 of lower gear box
32 of transmission 26 of a towed and PTO-driven implement 22 (Walters,
col. 2, ll. 34-35 and 47-49, and Fig. 1).
FF2. The Examiner concedes that Walters does not disclose a joint
component of a universal joint being “rotatable through a specified range of
free-motion rotation without torque transmission,” as called for in claim 1
(Final Rejection 3-4 and Answer 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013