Appeal No. 2000-0760
Application No. 08/831,198
known" (answer, page 5).
We do not consider this rejection to be well taken. In
the first place, the examiner has cited no evidence which
would teach or suggest the use of a spring; Göbel teaches that
the retainer plates are "initially stressed," which would
remove the necessity for using a spring. Secondly, even if a
spring were used, it is not apparent how one of ordinary skill
in the art would have incorporated it in the Yanko apparatus.
If a friction disc were used instead of Yanko's spring washer
126, then, in order to meet the limitations of claim 8, the
spring would have to be positioned between the outer surface
of retainer plate 88 and element 158 in order to engage an
outer surface of the retainer plate, as claimed. However, one
of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to have
located the spring in that position because element 158 is a
piston which moves axially (col. 8, lines 63 to 68), and such
movement would change the force exerted by the spring.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 8,
or of its dependent claim 10.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007