Appeal No. 2005-0948 Page 17
Application No. 09/922,938
In this obviousness rejection, the examiner determined that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
provide McCormack's lathe with a tailstock as suggested by Caddaye and that such a
tailstock be shaped as suggested by the tailstock of Hardy.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 12) that because no cross-sectional view of the
tailstock of Hardy is provided nor any explanation or even comment on the configuration
of this part is provided in Hardy there is no teaching evident in Hardy that would have
motivated the skilled artisan to have modified the McCormack/Caddaye combination so
as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. We agree. In our view, the teachings of Hardy
do not provide the necessary suggestion or motivation that would have made it obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
modified the McCormack/Caddaye combination so that the quill housing portion of the
tailstock assembly is generally elliptically shaped in Iongitudinal section and generally
circularly shaped in transverse cross section so as to define a generally continuously
curved outer peripheral surface.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14
and 16, and claims 18 and 19 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007