Appeal 2007-1588
Application 10/964,098
ANALYSIS
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9. We are in
complete agreement with the Appellants that neither Schaefer reference
discloses what can be considered a cylindrical collar overlapping and
coaxially surrounding a shaft, and thus neither reference can teach fixing a
collar to a shaft at an axial distance removed from the bent portion. In
Schaefer ‘398, the connecting members are two in number and they extend
partially circumferentially around the shaft. Inasmuch as Schaefer ‘398
discloses welding the lateral edges of the jaws to the shaft, it would not have
been obvious to make these members circumferential.
With respect to Schaefer ‘048, Schaefer ‘048 purposely offsets the
cross members 7 and 9 from one another for several reasons, not the least of
which is to provide additional space for welding. In our view, it is
unreasonable to consider the jaws or the cross members of Schaefer ‘398
and Schaefer ‘048, respectively, as suggesting or teaching a cylindrical
collar as required by independent claim 1. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013