Appeal 2007-0422
Application 09/943,685
FF3. The Examiner finds Ferguson teaches a joint component being
rotatable through a specified range of free-motion without torque
transmission and, on the basis of this finding, concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide such a feature on Walters (Final Rejection 4 and
Answer 4-5).
FF4. Ferguson does not disclose a joint component being rotatable through
a specified range of free-motion without torque transmission. Ferguson
discloses a drive member 10 comprising a yoke 12 for a conventional
universal joint (Ferguson, col. 2, ll. 36-39) and a driven member 38
(Ferguson, col. 2, l. 54). The yoke has a stem 20 with four flat surfaces 22
(Ferguson, col. 2, ll. 46-47, Figs. 1 and 3) and the driven member 38
includes a primary section 40 having a square inner surface defined by four
flat surfaces 42 (Ferguson, col. 2, ll. 56-58). Ferguson provides elastomer
pads 56 between the flat surfaces 22 of drive member 10 and flat surfaces 42
of driven member 38, preferably under precompression so as to cause
significant frictional engagement between the elastomer and surfaces 22 and
42 (Ferguson, col. 3, ll. 7-16, Fig. 3). Rotation of drive member 10
compresses the elastomer, thereby rotating driven member 38 and
“establishing a torque transmitting relationship between the drive and driven
members solely through the elastomer” (Ferguson, col. 3, ll. 41-44 and 51-
55). An insert 58 is mounted on stem 20 and engages driven member 38
such that relative rotation between insert 58 and driven member 38 is
prevented (Ferguson, col. 3, ll. 36-39). In the event of very high torque
transmission forces being imposed on the coupling, the clearances between
insert 58 and stem 20 (Fig. 4) are overcome by rotation of driven member
10, and its stem 20, relative to insert 58, thereby causing metal-to-metal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013