Appeal 2007-1243
Application 10/336,018
is to cure the glue when the balance state is achieved during the rotation of
the disc. (Emphasis added.)
Examiner’s Answer 6.
Thus, the first issue for us to consider is whether Hung anticipates or makes
obvious in light of Appellant’s admitted prior art2 rotating a disk with curable fluid
in a holder, until the disk reaches balance and curing the fluid.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant asserts that the rejection is in error
for the same reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Appellant
further argues that Goodrich discloses a housing with balls, wherein the balls move
in opposition of the eccentric mass to balance it. The housing also has a lubricant
to dampen the movement of the balls and to reduce the effect that the balls tend to
bunch up. Thus, Appellant argues that to introduce glue would destroy the purpose
of Goodrich’s device which relies upon the movement of the balls.
The Examiner contends, at page 6 of the Answer, that the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is proper and states that:
[T]he usage of the balls as taught by Goodrich in the curable fluid of Hung
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to
provide a better damping device which can reduce vibration caused by a
higher amplitude of vibration during a higher rotational speed.
2 Appellant’s Brief does not distinguish between the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 6, and 13 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in view of Hung, and the
Examiner’s Rejection of 1 through 6, 13 through 18, 24 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted prior
art in view of Hung.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013