Appeal No. 97-3201
Application No. 08/360,866
desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As we stated above, there is no explicit teaching in the
Japanese reference that the first and second gears of each
idler have different numbers of teeth. It is the examiner’s
position, however, that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to provide a difference in the
number of gear teeth between the stepped gears to obtain a
desired gear ratio based upon the intended use” (Answer, page
4). We do not agree.
The gear ratio “desired” in the reference apparently is 1:1,
that is, the same number of teeth on each gear. We fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to alter this ratio
to meet the terms of the claim, other than the hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure.
This, of course, is
impermissible.
This rejection also will not be sustained.
SUMMARY
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007