Appeal No. 2004-1378
Application No. 09/761,724
disclosed features, and "[t]he prior art references cited by the
Examiner fail to disclose or suggest the desirability of
replacing the axial-piston lubricating pump of JP '712 with the
gerotor lubricating pump of Kwasniewski or Dick" (page 8 of
Brief, penultimate paragraph).2 However, to the extent it is
appellants' argument that the prior art must expressly suggest
the desirability of combining the features of the references, it
is well settled that such an express teaching is not necessary
for a finding of obviousness under § 103. Rather, it is
axiomatic that a conclusion of obviousness may be drawn from what
the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). The collective teachings of
the prior art need only establish, as we find here, a reasonable
expectation of success, not an absolute predictability of such.
In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness
2 Appellants advance no argument why it would have been
nonobvious to use a gerotor pump in the assembly of JP '712.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007