Appeal No. 1997-1722
Application No. 08/385,256
Somerville are not directed to a torsional vibration damper and, therefore, are not pertinent
to one of ordinary skill in the art looking for a suitable adhesive to replace those of Thiry
and Ferguson in manufacturing a torsional vibration damper. The examiner, on the other
hand, has not addressed this argument of appellants. Hence, while appellants are correct
in stating that neither McGuire nor Somerville expressly teaches the use of an adhesive
which is initially non-adhesive, even if the examiner was accurate in finding that "the epoxy
and halogenated rubber adhesives . . . disclosed in Somerville and McGuire are held/seen
to be initially non-adhesive" (page 8 of answer), the examiner has failed to establish that
one of ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing a pressed-in torsional vibration damper
would have considered selecting an adhesive like the type claimed from the disclosures of
McGuire and Somerville. Assuming that the presently claimed adhesives were not novel at
the time of filing the present application, it seems that the examiner has, at most, indicated
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try the adhesives of
appellants' invention. Manifestly, this is not the proper standard for establishing
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007