Appeal No. 2006-1294
Application No. 10/430,963
between the two halves of the guard assembly. Claims 31-35 and 39 do not lack
novelty over Powell.
We will affirm the rejection of claim 28 as unpatenable over Pelton in view
of Powell. As noted above Pelton discloses two pivoting guard portions
surrounding a coupling. Powell discloses sleeve 26 which can be trimmed to fit
the length of the shaft and also discloses ventilation port 28. It would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to provide Powell with a pivoting
coupling in the nature of a hinge as taught by Pelton. The motivation for
combining the disclosures is found in the convenience the hinge connection
provides with respect to access and servicing the protected coupling.
Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph we will
not affirm the rejection of claim 29 and 39. In our view, appellant’s claim
language referring to “trim lines” would be clear and understandable to one of
ordinary skill. We will, however, affirm the § 112 second paragraph rejection of
claim 33, for the reasons given by the examiner. It is not clear to us whether the
base member claimed in claim 33 is part of the claimed guard assembly of the
independent claim 31.
CONCLUSIONS
The examiner has not sustained his burden of showing that claims 1-3, 29,
31 through 35 and 39 are anticipated by Pelton.
The examiner has not sustained his burden of showing that claims 1-3, 27,
29, 35 and 39 are anticipated by Hogan. The examiner has sustained his burden of
showing that claims 31 through 34 are anticipated by Hogan.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013