Appeal 2007-1548
Application 10/702,346
press-fit arrangement of Ito would provide an improved joint between the pressure
sensor and the housing and provide resistance to such forces.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to replace the press-fit
between the housing and pressure port of Pepperling with the knurled press-fit
arrangement of Ito using methods known in the art at the time the invention was
made. Moreover, each of the elements of Pepperling and Ito combined by the
Examiner performs the same function when combined as it does in the prior art.
Thus, such a combination would have yielded predictable results. See Sakraida v.
Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976).
Third, the Appellants argue that the Pepperling sensor, as modified by the
teachings of Ito, would not function as intended, because the Ito reference aims to
produce a firmly-jointed structure, and the sensor assembly must be able to allow
some lateral movement to prevent mounting stress sensor error (Appeal Br. 11;
Reply Br. 3). The Appellants, however, have provided no evidence to support this
contention. Pepperling describes that a press-fit attachment, in which the housing
deforms when the sensor assembly is press-fit into the opening in the housing, is
appropriate for use with its pressure sensor assembly (Finding of Fact 2). Further,
Ito describes the joint structure achieved using its knurled press-fit arrangement as
“firmly jointed” (Finding of Fact 5), but Ito does not describe that its joint structure
prevents all lateral movement between the shaft and rotor. As such, without
evidence to support the Appellants’ contention that using the known press-fit
arrangement of Ito for Pepperling’s press-fit attachment would not allow
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013