Appeal 2007-2613
Application 10/660,239
Kittle in a rigid axle as it is merely applying a known technique to a known
device to achieve a predictable result. KSR at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In regards to Pitzer, we regard Pitzer’s teaching of tapered sleeves in a
bushing to be a teaching of general utility with respect to connecting rods or
shafts and surrounding members. As such, it is our view that the disclosures
of Smith and Pitzer would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1-5,
7-12, 14, 18 and 20 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time
Appellants’ invention was made. This is combining prior art elements
according to the method taught by Pitzer to achieve a predictable rigid
coupling of axle to trailing arm. See KSR at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Appellants’ arguments deal in detail with the Fig. 47 and Fig. 48
embodiments of the Smith patent. The Examiner’s reliance thereon may
have contributed to Appellants’ selection of this argument. Since we rely on
the general disclosure of Smith and not specifically on the disclosure of the
embodiments of Fig. 47 and Fig. 48, the thrust of the rejection has been
changed. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, we are designating our
decision as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR 41.50(b) and giving
Appellants the opportunity to further prosecute the claims before the
Examiner.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Kittle is affirmed.
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 18, and 20 under
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013