Appeal No. 2005-0482 Page 6
Application No. 09/875,787
“mechanically locked in assembled position” by the swaging action (column 2, lines 11-
12), as contrasted with the connection between the lug 27 of terminal base 20 and leg
53 of plate 55 which Hollis characterizes as being made “permanent by ‘burning’
wherein the two members are fused together” (sentence bridging columns 2 and 3).
The basis of the examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 15 and 16 as being
unpatentable over Hollis is that it would have been obvious to use electrical current to
heat the locking ring 29 of Hollis to fuse the materials because passing current through
metal to produce heat was well known in the art and heating as part of the swaging
operation is well described in Hollis (answer, page 5). This position is not well taken.
As mentioned above, Hollis provides no teaching or suggestion to weld or fuse
the locking ring to the terminal. Rather, Hollis discusses a mechanical locking
accomplished by a swaging action which softens the metals to facilitate their
deformation under downward pressure. In light of the differences between such
swaging action and electrical current welding, we find no suggestion in Hollis to
assemble the locking ring and terminal using electrical current heating. Even when
obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a
suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference. See In re Kotzab,
217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Having found no
such showing here, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 15 and
16 as being unpatentable over Hollis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007