Appeal No. 2002-0354 Page 4
Application No. 09/293,455
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "said central
bore having an enlarged portion opening towards said one end of said shaft; and a
retainer on said shaft for retaining said bearing on said shaft, said retainer positioned
within said enlarged bore portion of said bearing." Giving the representative claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that a retainer fit within an
enlarged portion of a central bore of a bearing.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "'A
prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill
in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007