Appeal 2007-0633
Application 10/132,844
one pocket. The Examiner maintains that the second portion 58 of Fahey
teaches at least one pocket being etched and coined to increase smoothness
of the cammed surface. We agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Arya and Fahey would have suggested the “treating said one or
more pockets to minimize pocket depth tolerances and introduce hardness
and strength into surface areas of said one or more pockets.”
While Fahey arguably only involves a pair of pockets or cammed
surfaces, the language of independent claim 1 requires only one pocket. We
find that the teachings of Arya alone would have suggested some etching
followed by some press-forming operations to improve stiffness and this
would have suggested to skilled artisans to look to other specific press-
forming operations such as either punch or roll coining of the “said one or
more pockets to minimize pocket depth tolerances and introduce hardness
and strength into surface areas of said one or more pockets” as suggested by
the combined teachings of Arya and Fahey. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie of obviousness, and we look to
Appellant’s Brief to show error therein.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends that the
Examiner has not given any patentable weight to the limitation “treating said
one or more pockets to minimize pocket depth tolerances and introduce
hardness and strength into surface areas of said one or more pockets” (Br.
10). Appellant argues that the disclosure of Arya is fairly generic and non-
specific with respect to pockets and does not mention “coining” (Br. 11-12).
We disagree that the Examiner disregarded the limitation, but agree with
Appellant that the disclosure and discussions of Arya are generally non-
specific.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013