Appeal 2007-1548
Application 10/702,346
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” 127 S.Ct. at 1740,
82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Second, the Appellants argue that the Examiner provides no evidence that
those concerned with the problems facing pressure sensor designers, i.e., the
problem of lateral forces, would consult rotor design references, which address
torque forces (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 2). We again find this argument
unpersuasive.
The Appellants’ Specification notes that high pressure sensors are subject to
internal forces from fluid pressure and external forces from installation and
assembly of the sensor along with temperature changes during use (Specification
1:14-17). The Specification then notes a need exists for a sensor assembly that can
withstand these internal and external stresses and “limits the potential for lateral
movement damage” (Specification 2:13-16). The Specification further describes
the attachment produced by its method as being “rigid against push-out and torque-
out forces, but does not totally constrain the port allowing some lateral movement
22 if needed” (Specification 4:24 – 5:1). As such, one of the forces with which the
Appellants’ invention is concerned is a torque force.
Ito teaches that its jointing structure produces a firm jointing by intimately
meshing the rotor and the humps and valleys of the shaft through deformation of
the through-hole of the rotor (Finding of Fact 7). This intimate meshing would
provide resistance to all types of forces on the joint, including push-out forces,
torque-out forces, and limiting the potential for lateral movement damage. As
such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the knurled
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013