Appeal No. 2004-0352 Page 5
Application No. 09/716,767
We agree with the appellant that the examiner has adduced no evidence which
would support a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to modify Ward in such a manner as to meet the terms of claim 1. The
examiner has not explained why an artisan would attach a tube to the end of Ward’s
shaft 24, and we can find no suggestion in the references to do so. In this regard, it
would seem that the steering wheel would have to be discarded in order to attach the
tube in the manner specified in claim 1, that is, with the tube end so coupled to the
threads as to also locate tube material in the grooves, and that this would destroy or at
least significantly alter the construction and operation of the Ward system and thus be a
disincentive for the artisan so to do. In addition, the diameter of the threaded portion of
the Ward body is less than that of the portion having the longitudinal grooves, and this
would preclude the Dubuque tube, as disclosed, from being installed upon the Ward
base in the manner required by claim 1. Again, to accomplish such a coupling would
require significant alteration of either Ward or Dubuque.
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ward force sensor in such a manner as to
meet the terms of claim 1. This being the case, the combined teachings of Ward and
Dubuque fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in independent claim 1. We reach the same conclusion, for the same
reasons, with regard to independent method claim 6, noting that the examiner has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007