Appeal 2006-3055
Application 10/440,124
ISSUES
The Appellant contends that Frank does not anticipate claims 1, 3, and 7 and
does not render obvious claims 2, 4-6, and 8-10, when taken alone or in
combination with Yordi, because neither Frank nor Yordi discloses, teaches, or
suggests a retaining plate that maintains the camshaft in position or a retaining
plate that has a notch that engages the camshaft (Br. 3-4). The Examiner contends
Frank discloses a retaining plate that retains a camshaft to maintain it in position,
and the retaining plate has at least one notch engaging the camshaft between the
first and second ends (Answer 3). The issues before us are: (1) whether the
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Frank anticipates
claims 1, 3, and 7; and (2) whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Frank, alone or in combination with Yordi, renders obvious
claims 2, 4-6, and 8-10.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts:
The engine of claim 1 includes a retaining plate “retaining said at least one
camshaft to maintain the at least one camshaft in position.”
This recitation requires the retaining plate to prevent the camshaft from any
movement along its longitudinal axis into or out of the cam chest.
The engine of claim 5 includes a retaining plate having a pair of notches
“formed in the edge of the retaining plate and engaging said camshafts.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013