Appeal No. 2005-1710
Application No. 10/057,474
Appealed claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fishbaugh in view
of Kingsley and Gaydecki or Ando.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
the claimed invention, as a whole, would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in
view of the applied prior art, considered as a whole.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection.
As recognized by the examiner, Fishbaugh, the primary
reference, while disclosing a pre-cured elastomer compression
fitted between a metal weight and a metal hub, is silent with
respect to the specific elastomer used and phosphate-coating the
metal surfaces. The examiner, however, cites Kingsly for
teaching a phosphate-coated metal surface that is interference-
fitted with an elastomer. However, as emphasized by appellants,
Kingsley "fails to disclose a pre-cured elastomeric member that
is compression fitted against a phosphated surface" (page 6 of
principal brief, last paragraph). Appellants explain that
"[a]lthough it is known that the phosphating improves the
adhesion when one cures the rubber next to the phosphated
surface, it is not logical to conclude that this same result
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007