Appeal No. 2005-0322
Application No. 10/431,268
In the present case, Mailliet, Choi, Arend and Hammon on the
one hand and Holbrook and Ing on the other hand disclose
decidedly different traction transmitting securing devices. The
only suggestion for culling the increasing projection/recess
axial clearance feature from the traction transmitting securing
device disclosed by either Holbrook or Ing and incorporating it
into the structurally and functionally dissimilar traction
transmitting securing device disclosed by any one of Mailliet,
Choi, Arend or Hammon stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Given the significant distinctions between the traction
transmitting securing devices respectively disclosed by the
primary and secondary references, the mere fact that the
references are from the same general field of endeavor does not
justify the selective piecing together of disparate structures
advanced by the examiner.
Accordingly we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2
through 9, as being unpatentable over any one of Mailliet, Choi,
Arend or Hammon in view of either Holbrook or Ing.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007