appellants) appeal from the final rejection of 1, 3-7 and 9-
17, the only claims remaining in the application.
We REVERSE.
The appellants' invention pertains to a flexible
coupling apparatus. Independent claim 1 is further
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and a copy
thereof may be found in the APPENDIX to the brief.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Louette 3,362,191 Jan. 9,
1968
Davidson et al. (Davidson) 4,176,815 Dec. 4,
1979
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Louette in view of
Davidson. According to the examiner it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a
circumferential groove to the joint of Louette as taught by
Davidson so as
to allow the pin to be locked in place and prevent
the metal retainer band from coming off of the belt
which would allow for a safer assembly. [Answer,
page 4.]
We will not support the examiner's position. Even if we
were to agree with the examiner that Davidson, which is
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007