Appeal No. 2003-0387 Page 11
Application No. 09/772,275
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner incorrectly ascertained
(answer, p. 3) that Hawthorne disclosed "all the structural limitations of the instant
claims." The examiner then stated that Hawthorne lacked "the specific simultaneous
equations recited in the claims." Hawthorne does not disclose all the structural
limitations of claim 1 since Hawthorne does not disclose any combination of wedge
angle 2 and wedge spring force P satisfying the two equations set forth in claim 1. That
is, claim 1 requires a specific wedge angle 2 with a corresponding specific wedge
spring force P which together satisfy the two equations set forth in claim 1.
Determination of obviousness
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner concluded (answer, p. 4)
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Hawthorne "to optimize the wedge angle and spring force
to improve the damping characteristic as part of routine experimentation and
optimization."
In our view, the examiner is correct that it would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the wedge
angle and spring force in Hawthorne's freight car truck assembly. However, there is no
teachings or suggestion that optimizing the wedge angle and spring force as taught by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007