Appeal No. 2004-0579 Page 5
Application No. 09/647,126
reduces machining costs” (final rejection, page 2). For the reasons which follow, we
find no suggestion in the combined teachings of Baumgartner and Angerfors to make
the modification proposed by the examiner.
Angerfors discloses a sealing ring 41 which seals against a cylindrically shaped
(unthreaded) part 42 of the extension 25 of an adjusting tappet assembly of a disc brake
assembly. Angerfors points out (column 3, line 60 et seq.) that
[t]he external thread 24 has an extension in the axial
direction which is limited to a portion of the total length of the
extension 25. Its length and placement are chosen so that,
more exactly, the external thread 24 does not come in
contact with the sealing ring 41, but instead so that the area
around the groove 43 forms a stop for the extension 25 in its
outer position. In this way it is possible to shape the area
42, which cooperates with the sealing ring 41, for maximum
sealing interaction with the sealing ring 41.
Angerfors, however, expresses no concern whatsoever about using the sealing
ring 41 to prevent any rotation of the extension 25 relative to the first tappet section 16
up to a specified torque to prevent adjustment of the tappet when subjected to
excessive shaking stress. Baumgartner, on the other hand, provides the friction ring 80
for the express purpose of preventing any rotation of the adjusting spindle up to a
defined torque and specifically discloses that the elastic element (friction ring) acts upon
the threaded surface of the threaded spindle. Angerfors and Baumgartner provide two
different types of devices in two different places on the tappet assembly to address two
different concerns. We thus find no suggestion in the teaching of Angerfors to position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007