Appeal No. 2005-2603 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/118,068
teeth, addressed by Batchelder. Accordingly, as outlined above, the motivation for the
modification proposed by the examiner is clearly expressed in Batchelder.
Appellants' argument in the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the brief that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected an apparatus comprising three
elements would be louder than an apparatus comprising two elements bears little if any
relevance to the modification proposed by the examiner. Minegishi already discloses
connecting together three elements, including a motor unit A2, a speed reducing unit
(simple planetary gear mechanism) C and an oscillating internal meshing planetary gear
unit D3, for example (see Figure 12). The examiner does not propose a modification
wherein another element or unit is added to this series. Rather, the examiner's rejection
proposes replacing the gears of one of those elements, the simple planetary gear
mechansim C, with toothless driving and driven rollers to form a simple planetary roller
mechanism.
Appellants' argument as to the relative age of the references (brief, page 9 and
reply brief, page 5) is also unsound. It is well established that the mere age of the
references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings,
absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and
failed to solve the problem. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332,
335 (CCPA 1977); In re Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347, 179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA 1973); In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007