Appeal No. 2004-1378
Application No. 09/761,724
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Since we fully concur
with the examiner's reasoning underlying the rejection and the
cogent disposition of the arguments raised by appellants, we will
adopt the examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the
rejection of record. We add the following for emphasis only.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that JP '712 discloses all the features of the
claimed assembly for a vehicular power transmission unit with the
exception of the claimed requirement that the lubrication pump be
a gerotor pump. Also, appellants have not refuted the examiner's
rationale with respect to the motivation for one of ordinary
skill in the art for substituting a gerotor pump for the axial-
piston pump of JP '712, namely, "one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that a gerotor pump is of simpler
construction than an axial-piston pump in that it only requires
two relatively rotating pumping members," along with the
"[i]ncidental benefits associated with a construction with fewer
parts [which] include: lower cost for the components, lower
assembly cost, and less likelihood of failure of any one
component" (page 6 of Answer, second paragraph).
The principal argument advanced by appellants is that the
prior art must suggest the desirability for combining their
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007