Appeal No. 2004-1895
Application No. 09/681,515
3), this patent is at least deficient in not teaching a
depression in the differential housing that is of a gutter-type
configuration and closed at an outer end thereof by a wall
portion that would extend over the end surface of an end journal
of a differential pinion carrier. To compensate for this
deficiency, the examiner relies upon the SKF disclosure. Like
the examiner, we readily appreciate that SKF teaches a support
(Fig. 4) made of two sheet metal parts 30, 31, with recesses 32
in the two parts together forming a seat for an end portion of an
axle 33. The difficulty we readily perceive with the examiner’s
application of the SKF reference is that this document addresses
a support, and not a differential housing as now claimed. It is
particularly worthy of noting that the SKF reference expressly
points out (page 1, line 90 to page 2, line 1) that a
transmission housing is not shown. In light of the above
assessment of the applied teachings, we simply cannot support the
view advocated by the examiner that the SKF teaching would have
been suggestive of modifying the differential housing of Lowe.
As we see it, only impermissible reliance upon appellants’ own
teaching would have enabled the claimed invention to be derived
from the Lowe and SKF documents. It is for the above reasons
that this panel of the Board does not sustain the rejection of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007