Appeal No. 2006-1294
Application No. 10/430,963
ISSUES
Appellant argues that Pelton does not disclose appellant’s claimed sleeve
portions that can be trimmed. With respect to Hogan, appellant argues that
Hogan does not show a coupling connection because Hogan does not have a
pair of rotating shafts. With respect to Powell, appellant argues that Powell
does not show a pivotal or hinge connection joining the two first and second
guard portions. With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 28 apellant
argues that the claimed features are not found in Pelton and Powell, and
additionally argues that there is no motivation to modify Pelton in the manner
suggested by the examiner. With respect to the rejections under § 112, second
paragraph, appellant argues that the term “trim line” does not render the claims
indefinite. The appellant further argues that claim 33 is not indefinite as to
whether the base member is part of the claimed combination or not.
Therefore, the issues for our decision on appeal are: whether Pelton
anticipates claims 1 through 3, 29, 31, 35 and 39; whether Hogan anticipates
claims 1 through 3, 27, 29, 31 though 35 and 39; whether Powell anticipates
claims 31 through 35 and 39: whether Pelton and Powell render unpatentable
claim 28; and whether claims 29, 33 and 39 are indefinite under the purview of
35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pelton discloses a safety device to be used on revolving shafts or
machinery to prevent contact by workers and to protect the coupling joint.
Pelton has a first guard half 1 and a second guard half 2 pivotally connected by
hinge connector 5 and 6. The first guard half and the second guard half have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013