Appeal 2006-3055
Application 10/440,124
from claim 1. Yordi does not disclose a retaining plate that maintains a camshaft
in position. Similar to our reasoning for Frank, Yordi likewise has a thrust plate
that prevents movement of the camshaft only in one direction. In this case, Yordi’s
thrust plate would not prevent the camshaft from moving into the camshaft
housing. As such, the thrust plate of Yordi does not function as a retaining plate,
as recited in claim 1, because it does not maintain the camshaft in position. As
such, we find that dependent claims 2 and 4 are not obvious in view of Frank and
Yordi.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, and claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 7.
Yordi does not cure the deficiencies of Frank because Yordi does not disclose a
retaining plate having at least one notch engaging the camshaft. Rather, it appears
from Yordi’s drawings that its thrust plate has an aperture through which the
camshaft extends. As such, we find that dependent claims 6, 9, and 10 are not
obvious in view of Frank and Yordi.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 3, and 7
anticipated by Frank and erred in finding claims 2, 4-6, and 8-10 obvious in view
of Frank, taken alone or in combination with Yordi.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013