Appeal No. 2004-1530
Application No. 09/870,770
It has previously been held that it is not inventive
to discover optimum ranges of [sic] by routine
experimentation where the general conditions of the claim
are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The particular
variable must first be recognized as being result-
effective before the determination of optimum ranges of
the variables may be characterized as routine
experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6
(CCPA 1977). Because it has been shown that the number
of teeth on any one of the side gears and the number of
teeth on any one of the pinion gears are result-effective
variables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
optimize these tooth numbers in the differential admitted
to be prior art by applicant by selecting them such that:
A. the sum [of] the number of teeth of the side gear and
the number of teeth of the pinion mate gear is less than,
or alternatively, no greater than nineteen; B. the
difference between the number of teeth of the side gear
and the number of teeth of the pinion mate gear is no
greater than three; and C. the number of teeth of the
side gear and the number of teeth of the pinion mate gear
each is no greater that eleven. [Final rejection, page
3].
In the present case, appellant’s independent claims differ
from AAPA in that they call for, among other things, the number of
teeth on the side gear and the number of teeth on the pinion mate
gear to be such that the sum of these numbers is either less than
nineteen (claims 1 and 4) or no greater than nineteen (claims 5, 7
and 9). These limitations are consistent with appellant’s
disclosure at the bottom of page 2 of the specification that the
combination of side gear and pinion side gear should have numbers
of teeth optimized to provide improved power density and reduced
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007