Appeal No. 2004-1376
Application No. 09/859,984
The Examiner alternatively rejected the subject matter of claims 1, 5, 7, 11,
19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karl. In support of this rejection, the
Examiner refers to a patent to Donahue, U.S. 5,038,847.4
The Examiner’s rationale is that it was well known in the art to form a
crankshaft and crankpin as one piece. The Examiner asserts “[i]t would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
form the shaft and crankpin of Karl as one-piece instead of separate pieces in order
to simplify the cost of manufacturing as suggested by common knowledge in the
art.” (Final Rejection, p. 5).
The Examiner’s rejection under § 103 fails for the same reasons presented
above. Specifically, if the shaft and pin structure of Karl were formed as one piece
as suggested by the Examiner the resulting crankshaft assembly would require the
use of a multiple piece bearing support.5 The Examiner has not provided
motivation for modifying the crankweb of Karl to exclude the counter weights.6
4 In the Answer, the Examiner has provided an extensive discussion of the Donahue
reference. However, the rejection appearing in the Final Rejection is based on Karl alone. The
Examiner cited the Donahue reference as evidence that forming a one piece crankshaft
assembly is well known in the art. (Final Rejection, p. 5).
5 The crankshaft depicted in the Donahue reference would not allow the sliding
attachment of a one piece bearing support around the crankpin.
6 The counter weights appearing in the Donahue reference appear to be formed during
the cast forming of the crankshaft assembly.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007