Appeal No. 1999-1499
Application No. 08/764,736
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we find no suggestion or incentive in the
teachings of the combined prior art that would have led one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellants'
invention, to modify the references in the manner urged by the
examiner. In our view, the teachings of the prior art relied
upon by the examiner as suggesting the subject matter of claim
12 are only sufficient when combined with impermissible
hindsight.
Since all the limitations of dependent claim 12 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, the decision of
the examiner to reject claim 12, and claims 13 and 14
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of dependent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Borg-Warner in view of Dutkiewicz. We note
that claim 17 recites that
said second yoke includes a lip which extends
radially inwardly, and between said arms, overlying
a top portion of said wing bearings (claim 17, our
emphasis).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007