Appeal No. 1998-0616
Application No. 08/614,347
to show that the natural result flowing from the
operation as taught would result in the performance
of the questioned function, it seems to be well
settled that the disclosure should be regarded as
sufficient.
In the present case, the fact that groove 9 is taught by Matt
as being formed by cutting edges 6 as the cam is forced over
the increased diameter portions does not necessarily mean that
groove 9 has rough edges sufficient for retaining the cam in
the axial direction on the cam shaft.
While Figures 4 and 6 depict what might be described as a
“burr,” it is apparent that this “burr” or chip, as it is
referred to in Matt, is formed as the cutting edge 6 is forced
over the beads or raised portions C and is removed or
separated from the raised portion as the cutting edge passes
over the raised portion to its final position shown in Figure
5. There is simply no description in Matt of a chip remaining
attached to the raised portion C for retaining the cam in the
axial direction on the cam shaft.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejections of claim 1 or of claim 2, dependent on
claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007