Appeal No. 1998-0616
Application No. 08/614,347
[o]nce the cam 2 has reached its intended position,
the cam 2 is securely and rigidly seated on the
increased diameter portion C. This chip-removing
cutting or broaching of the hard cam by means of the
sharp cutting edge 6 results in a tight fit of the
cam on the shaft. In its effect, this tight fit
corresponds to a press fit acting on the existing
number of cutting edges. Additionally, since the
cutting edges which form the groove 9 in a
chip-removing manner when the cam is pressed on are
wedged onto the shaft in a positively locking
manner, the cams are secured against rotation.
See brief, pp. 9, 10. Appellants point out that no raised
burr is mentioned anywhere in the Matt specification nor does
Matt provide a raised burr for retaining a cam in the axial
direction on the cam shaft. See brief, p. 10.
It is the examiner’s position that Matt’s projections 5
will produce burrs or rough edges at the grooves 9 and that a
“burr” is by definition a rough edge. See answer, p. 5. The
examiner is also of the opinion that the language of claim 1
requiring the burr to be “raised on the shaft member by
displacement of shaft material” is a method limitation that
carries no patentable weight and, at any rate, Matt’s Figures
4 and 6 show a “burr” being raised on the shaft. See answer,
p. 6.
To begin with, we agree with the appellants’ argument
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007