Appeal No. 2000-0760
Application No. 08/831,198
notches of the inner and outer drive plates instead
of the drive blocks being connected together would
provide of [sic] an assembly that has less weight
and would allow for one of the blocks to be replaced
if it were damaged instead of having to replace the
entire ring. It would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to
replace the ring of drive blocks with individual
drive blocks so [as] to reduce the weight of the
assembly and to allow for one of the blocks to be
replaced if it were damaged.
She also argues (id., page 6):
Yanko et al teaches blocks that [sic] 40 that are
part of a ring 32. Each block 40 is located in its
own window, note figure 1; and each block is riveted
to the retainer plates 88, 92, note figure 2. The
[sic] since each block is fixed to the retaining
plates the ring is not necessary and only adds
additional weight to the assembly. If the element
is not necessary then it is obvious to eliminate
that element. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144
USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
. . . Since it is well recognized that weight is a
problem in the automobile industry, removing un-
necessary elements to reduce the weight of the
assembly would not be improper hindsight
reconstruction.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant's brief, supplemental brief
and reply brief, and in the examiner's answer, we conclude
that claim 2 is patentable over Yanko.
Where, as here, obviousness is based on a single prior
art reference, there must still be a showing of a suggestion
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007