Appeal 2007-2613
Application 10/660,239
interchangeably by one of ordinary skill as the circumstances of any
particular installation demand.
Kittle discloses a wheel spread adjusting device for a tractor in which
the spacing of the rear wheel is adjustable for a given row width in a
farmer’s field. The examiner directs our attention to tapered surfaces 14a
and 14b which interact with tapered surfaces in wheel hub 10 to hold the
axle 12 to the wheel hub.
Pitzer discloses a bushing joint of general utility wherein a shaft 28 is
connected to a bushing 29 using several separate individual sleeves or split
rings 20, 1, 1. The rings have inside and outside tapers, respectively. The
connection of Pitzer can either be a rotary connection, or the bushing may
serve as a lock to make tight frictional engagement between a journal and a
shaft which may approach the tightness of shrink fit. See col. 4, ll. 35-39.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between
the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject
matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in
evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013