Appeal No. 2000-1922
Application No. 08/806,494
4, lines 59-61, of Krum, “[i]t is, thus, very unlikely that
actuator bearing lubricant will find its way through the gap 94
between the washer seal 90 and the pivot shaft 18.” As further
indicated in Krum (column 4,lines 62-63), the situation is
different at the bottom of the bearing assembly. In this lower
portion of the bearing assembly, Krum felt the need to utilize a
labyrinth seal 14 in the form of an incorporated structure
within E-block 64 to address the problem of lubricant and
contaminant migration. In our view, it is apparent that,
although Krum was aware of labyrinth seals since one was used at
the bottom of the bearing assembly, there was no concern or any
recognition of any problem at the top of the bearing assembly
where the washer seal 90 is located that would have required the
use of a labyrinth seal. It is our opinion that any suggestion
to modify the washer seal 90 of Krum to include a flange and
create a labyrinth seal as proposed by the Examiner could only
come from Appellants’ own disclosure and not from any teaching
in the applied Krum and Yasui references.
In summary, we are left to speculate why one of ordinary
skill would have found it obvious to alter the applied prior art
to make the modification suggested by the Examiner. The only
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007