Appeal 2007-0422
Application 09/943,685
contact between stem 20 and insert 58 (Fig. 5) and transmitting torque to
driven member 38 without further compressing the elastomer (Ferguson, col.
3, l. 64 to col. 4, l. 2). Even when “lost motion” occurs between the drive
member 10 and driven member 38 (Ferguson, col. 4, ll. 4-7), torque is
transmitted from drive member 10 to driven member 38 through the
elastomer pads 56; driven member 38 rotates with drive member 10, though
perhaps over a smaller rotation angle than drive member 10. Ferguson’s
drive member 10 cannot rotate through any range of motion without
transferring torque to driven member 38, either through elastomer pads 56
alone or through elastomer pads 56 and insert 58.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner concedes that Walters lacks 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 (FF2).
Ferguson also lacks a joint component of a universal joint being “rotatable
through a specified range of free-motion rotation without torque
transmission” (FF4) and thus cannot make up for the conceded deficiency of
Walters.
The Examiner erred in finding that Ferguson teaches a joint
component being rotatable through a specified range of free-motion without
torque transmission and consequently concluding that it would have been
obvious to provide such a feature on Walters (FF3). The rejection of claim
1, and claims 2-11 depending from claim 1, cannot be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013