Appeal No. 2001-1405
Application No. 09/207,766
processing element, that person would look to plural (other) technologies, not just the
fibrous material processing element art, in order to determine how to reduce vibration
(answer, page 11). While this may be so, however, we do not consider that one of ordinary
skill would derive from Tillenburg a teaching or suggestion to elastically bond the separate
parts, i.e., the base and processing element(s), of a fitting for mechanical processing of
fibrous material as disclosed by AAPA-1. As appellant notes at pages 5 to 7 of the reply
brief, Tillenburg discloses resiliently bonding two parts (2 and 3) of a carrier (base)
member, on which the friction material 5 is mounted, rather than between the carrier and
the friction material carried thereon. Thus, we do not perceive any teaching in Tillenburg to
resiliently (elastically) bond the processing element(s) to the base in the AAPA-1 fitting.
Any such modification of AAPA-1 would appear to be based on impermissible hindsight
derived from appellant’s own disclosure.
We therefore conclude that claim 1 is unobvious over the combination of AAPA-1
and Tillenburg. The other claims on appeal, being dependent on claim 1, are likewise
unobvious.3
Conclusion
3At the oral hearing, we pointed out to appellant’s counsel that the relationship of the step recited
in claim 10 to parent claim 1 was not clear, and that the meaning of the recitation “the remaining gap . . .
the elastic bonding material” in claim 20 was not apparent. These matters should be attended to upon
return of the application to the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007