Appeal No. 1999-1489
Application No. 08/691,193
to appellant to prove that the fusion welded product of Kosik
does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics
of his claimed friction welded product. Id. No such proof has
been presented.
Rejection (2) will therefore be affirmed.
Rejection (3)
We will first consider claims 12 and 13:
12. The dynamically balanced driveshaft assembly as
defined in claim 11 wherein the tubular driveshaft and the stud
are aluminum.
13. The dynamically balanced driveshaft assembly as
defined in claim 12 wherein the metal plate is steel.
Kosik discloses the limitations recited in these claims, i.e.,
an aluminum driveshaft (page 4, line 4) and stud (page 3, line
5), and steel plates (page 4, line 5). Accordingly, as
discussed above, Kosik prima facie meets all the limitations of
claims 12 and 13, and rejection (3) will be sustained as to
them. While this is tantamount to a holding that claims 12 and
13 are anticipated, sustaining of the § 103 rejection is proper
since “The complete disclosure of an invention in the prior art
is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness.” In re Avery, 518
F.2d 1228, 1234, 186 USPQ 161, 166 (CCPA 1975).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007