Appeal No. 1999-2850
Application No. 09/042,861
aside so that the motor drive shaft turns freely in the recess created by the deformation
of the tabs. With such a disclosure, the skilled artisan would have been enabled, without
undue experimentation, to make and use the invention claimed by using a tab
material which would withstand resistance up to a degree and then bend away, or deform,
rather than other materials which would break away under the predetermined resistance.
While the specification does not recite a specific material that is to be used for such
deformable tabs, the artisan would have found such materials, dependent on the
predetermined resistance to be overcome, without undue experimentation.
We turn now to the rejection of claims 1-12 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner contends that either one of Zinsmeyer or Fushimoto discloses the
instant claimed invention but for the tab 95 in Zinsmeyer or a drive member in Fushimoto
being made to break in the instance of a jam, thereby preventing damage to the motor and
associated drive components in the event of a malfunction.
However, the examiner points to any one of 9 secondary references for the teaching
“of having a weaker element break or fracture at a time of overload, so as to prevent
the more destructive effect of a more significant member failing” [answer-page 6].
While it may be known, in general, to have an element break at the time of an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007