Appeal No. 1999-0641 Page 5
Application No. 08/536,654
reference to the global projection (R ) functioning as a universal joint makes it clear that angular
1
freedom of movement is provided at the connection between the shaft (7) and the body (1). To
provide a "rigid" connection of the shaft (7) to the body (1) as proposed by the examiner would
destroy both of these important features of Naitou's invention, thereby making it unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that such a modification would
not have been obvious from the applied prior art.4
For the above reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, or claim 3 which depends therefrom, on the basis of the reasoning expressed by the
examiner.
However, having carefully considered the appellant's disclosure, the disclosure of
Naitou and the scope of claim 1, we have determined that Naitou anticipates claim 1.
Therefore, pursuant to 37 CFR § l.196(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Naitou.
As discussed above, Naitou discloses a hub (body 1) having an opening (through hole
2) at the left end thereof, a "second" rotating member (driving shaft 5) disposed in the opening,
a pin (6) fixed perpendicularly to the driving shaft (5) having ends extending into slots (grooves
4Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan
Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360, 52 USPQ2d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ
1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007