Appeal No. 2006-0600 4
Application No. 10/163,249
(answer, pages 3-4), the examiner is of the view that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to provide the elastomeric bushing (18) of
Overby with a retaining ring located adjacent a first radially
extending longitudinal end portion (following the teachings of
Dawda) and to ensure that the entire outer surface of the retaining
ring is encompassed by and in contact with the elastomeric bushing,
as evidenced by Cummings. From the examiner’s perspective, the
artisan would have been led to make such a modification in the
bushing of Overby in order to improve the axial load capability of
the bushing, i.e., “in order to be able to sustain many cycles of
considerable axial load without deteriorating the primary isolation
function” (answer, page 4).
While we have fully considered the arguments advanced by
appellant in the brief and reply brief, we are not convinced
thereby that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness as regards
independent claim 1 is in error. Although appellant points to
alleged distinctions between the applied prior art and the
invention of claim 1 based upon the particular problem which the
invention was intended to solve, appellant has not specifically
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007