Appeal No. 2006-0042 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/411,438
In the rejections under appeal, the examiner (answer, pp. 4 and 6) ascertained
that Latzen does not disclose that the washer disposed above the nut and below the
sleeves 11 and 12 and the rubber lining or packing 13 captured therebetween (see
Figure 7 of Latzen) is a spring washer. The examiner then determined that it would
have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to replace the Latzen washer with a Belleville spring washer, as suggested and
taught by Schmidt, for the purpose of creating an axial preload in the Latzen assembly.
The appellants argue throughout both briefs that there is no suggestion or
motivation to combine Latzen and Schmidt in the manner set forth in the rejections
under appeal. The appellants point out that the axial preload generated by the Belleville
washer (e.g., washer 378) in Schmidt is provided in a different location than in the
claimed invention or in Latzen and for a significantly different purpose. We agree.
In our opinion, there is no suggestion or motivation within the combined
teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Latzen, Schmidt and McAfee) that would have
made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to have replaced the Latzen washer with a Belleville spring washer. Instead, it is
our view that the only possible suggestion for modifying Latzen in the manner proposed
by the examiner to arrive at the claimed subject matter stems from hindsight knowledge
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007