Appeal No. 2004-1376
Application No. 09/859,984
The subject matter of the independent claims 1, 7 and 19 all require a one-
piece elongated shaft adapted to rotate about a longitudinal axis. The shaft has a
crankpin radially offset from said axis of the shaft. Each claim also requires an
elongated connecting rod. The connecting rod has a one-piece annular bearing
support at one end. According to the specification, page 6, the bearing support is
positioned around said crankpin by sliding the one-piece bearing support over one
end of said shaft and onto said crankpin. Further, the claims also require one
counterweight (claim 19) or two counterweights (claims 1 and 7) to be secured to
the shaft adjacent one end of the crankpin.
The Examiner acknowledges that the crankshaft assembly of Karl is not
formed as one piece; however, the Examiner asserts that the present claims are
anticipated by Karl. Specifically the Examiner states:
Karl teaches the crankshaft assembly substantially as claimed,
however, the shaft and the pin of Karl are not formed as one-piece.
Applicant’s claim 1 and other claims below are anticipated by Karl
because the Supreme Court in Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150
US 164 (1893) has long settled that “as to the third patent, it is void
because the claims in it were clearly anticipated, and because it
involves no invention to cast in one piece an article which has
formerly been cast in two pieces and put together.”
[Final Rejection, p. 3, emphasis original]
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007