Appeal No. 2006-1815
Application No. 10/178,767
between the washer and the washer chamber of his assembly that would permit
movement of the washer within the washer chamber following revolution of the
cam mechanism1 and does not otherwise discuss or address in any way the
problem of washer movement and wear addressed by appellant’s disclosure, we see
no reason to provide such a gap and/or to add two angularly spaced pins to the
washers of Shinohara’s pump assembly. Moreover, since Higginbotham does not
relate to an assembly in any way corresponding to the fuel injection pump of
Shinohara and does not teach or suggest that there is any problem or deficiency in
Shinohara, we see no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated by Higginbotham to modify Shinohara.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions found in
Shinohara and Higginbotham would not have made the subject matter as a whole
of independent claim 1 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
1 In that regard, we note that the thrust washers of Shinohara pointed to by the examiner
in Figures 1 and 2 of that patent appear to be the same as those seen in appellant’s application
Figures 6(a) and 6(b), wherein the thrust washer (90) is polygonal in external shape and engages
the walls of a similarly shaped washer chamber (37) in such a way that relative motion between
washer (90) and the cam cover (30) is avoided. Note particularly, page 12 of appellant’s
specification where that embodiment is described.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007