Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797
1 low cost, that is disposed in a recess (60) in the chuck (50) such that a portion of
2 the friction ring projects out of the recess and presses against an annular bead (18)
3 on the can end (A) (Currie 1:58-61; 3:29-65; fig. 4).
4 The Examiner argues (Answer 4):
5 It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
6 the time the invention was made to employ O-rings as the second drive
7 mechanism elements in Sedwick, following the suggestion of Currie et al,
8 rather than spring plate 19 and projection 16, in order to simplify the
9 construction of the seaming head in a low cost manner. To provide the O-
10 rings on either the chuck or seaming roll in Sedwick, or on both as required
11 by Claims 17 and 21, would be an obvious expedient for one having
12 ordinary mechanical skill to determine by routine experimentation in order
13 to optimize the driving friction for any specific seaming operation.
14
15 The Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would
16 have considered Currie’s o-ring, which prevents slippage between a chuck and a
17 can lid (Currie 1:10-17), to be effective as a replacement for Sedwick’s spring
18 plate 19 and double seaming roll’s annular projection (16) that prevent slippage
19 between metal parts and a seaming roll. The Examiner argues that such a
20 replacement would optimize the driving friction, but the Examiner has provided no
21 supporting evidence. The record, therefore, indicates that the Examiner used
22 impermissible hindsight in rejecting the Appellant’s claims over the combined
23 disclosures of Sedwick and Currie. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
24 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
25 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA
26 1960).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013