Appeal No. 2001-2140
Application No. 09/217,484
The examiner’s position here is unsound for a number of
reasons. To begin with, Messina’s clear differentiation
between cap bush 35 and piston 5 belies any notion that the
cap bush constitutes a piston through which stem 36 passes as
required by claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale advanced by
the examiner to justify the proposed modification of Messina
in view of Nordlund has no basis in fact. More particularly,
there is nothing in either reference which indicates that
fluid leakage between Messina’s cap bush 35 and threaded stem
36 poses a problem, or that the structural relationship
between the cap bush and threaded stem results in undue wear.
Indeed, Messina’s provision of plug 40 to close off the inner
end of cap bush 35 seemingly would prevent any such fluid
leakage and obviate the need for a structural relationship
between the cap bush and threaded stem which might cause wear.
In actuality, the construction of Nordlund’s piston rod 22 has
little, if any, practical relevance to the construction of
Messina’s threaded stem 36. The only reason to selectively
combine these features in the manner proposed by the examiner
stems from impermissible hindsight knowledge. Moreover, this
fundamental flaw in the Messina-Nordlund combination finds no
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007