Appeal 2006-3196
Application 10/860,445
an annular ring.” Hyde, col. 5, lines 4-5. The question before us is whether this
suggestion in Hyde to form the friction lining of individual pads renders obvious
the claimed circular friction material. We find that the disclosure in Hyde of using
individual pads to form an annular ring would not have led one having ordinary
skill in the art to make the friction material on each disc segment in a circular
shape. Specifically, we do not see why a person having ordinary skill in the art,
intending to form an annular ring of friction material as suggested in Hyde, would
use circular friction pads to do so. Rather, presumably, one would use a pad
shaped in a way that would most closely form a ring when the disc segments are
connected together to form the disc.
The examiner further determined that the “applicant does not have criticality
for the claimed ‘circular’ shape and it appears that the invention would perform
equally well with a variety of friction material shapes.” Answer, p. 5 (citing In re
Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). We disagree with the
examiner’s assertion, because Hyde teaches that “[p]ads or sectors of currently
available carbon material have been found to wear much faster than continuous
annular friction members of the same material.” Hyde, col. 5, lines 5-7. As such,
were one to use circular pads, as recited in claim 3, according to Hyde, such pads
would wear faster and thus the invention would not perform equally well, as
posited by the examiner. Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 3 as unpatentable over Ericson and Hyde.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007