Appeal No. 2004-0157 Page 3
Application No. 09/706,771
The appellants’ invention is directed to the problem in a vehicle’s steerable
wheels wherein when braking force is applied during a turn the ball joint center of the
turned wheel is caused to move, which results in degraded returnability of the wheel to
the neutral position. The problem is solved in accordance with the appellants’ invention
by installing in the rearmost lower suspension link a resilient bushing which is less rigid
in the width direction of the vehicle than in the longitudinal direction.
All of the claims stand rejected as being obvious1 in view of the combined
teachings of Ando and Edahiro. In particular, the examiner finds all of the subject
matter recited in independent claim 1 to be disclosed or taught by Ando except that the
resilient bushing of Ando “does not have a pair of hollow portions in the form of axial
openings.” However, the examiner is of the view that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ando by altering the bushing to meet the
limitations recited in claim 1 “in order to reduce vibration transferred by the suspension
link to the vehicle body,” a teaching which the examiner attributes to Edahiro. The
examiner further takes the position that such a modification “would inherently have the
1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007