Appeal No. 2002-1603
Application 09/320,853
In that regard, we additionally note that claim 1 on appeal
is directed to a tripod type constant velocity universal joint in
its assembled condition wherein the cylindrical rolling elements
contained within a groove formed in a central section of each
roller mounted on a trunnion roll “directly on” an outer
circumferential surface of the trunnion. Claim 1 is not directed
to a method of assembly for such a constant velocity joint.
As for appellants’ argument that the “written disclosure” of
Otsuka is lacking because the groove in the roller is not
mentioned in the text, we direct attention to Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir
1991), wherein the Court specifically noted that "drawings alone
may provide a 'written description' of an invention as required
by § 112." See also In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case such a groove is
clearly shown in Figures 3-5 of the Otsuka patent and the
description of an “inner cylindrical surface” (7) on the roller
for accommodating the needle bearings (8) is not at all
inconsistent with the showing in the drawings. It is instead
appellants’ conclusion (brief, page 15) that the inner
cylindrical surface (7) mentioned in Otsuka must be “the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007