Appeal No. 1999-0405
Application No. 08/651,571
and the prior art rather than on the invention as a whole as
35 U.S.C. § 103 requires, as we believe the examiner has done
in the present case. See, e.g., Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1375, 231 USPQ 81, 93 (Fed.
Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).
Since we have determined that the teachings and
suggestions found in Thut or Cooper considered with those of
Hattori would not have made the subject matter as a whole of
claims 1 through 3, 5 through 18 and 20 on appeal obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejections
of those claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mordue in view of
Hattori, we have reviewed the Mordue patent, noting that it
discloses (in Fig. 9) a shaft (15) for a molten metal impeller
and a bearing ring (32) bonded to the shaft using refractory
cement. Mordue does not disclose, teach or suggest a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007