Ex parte UMEZAWA et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 95-4588                                                          
          Application 08/127,123                                                      

          review, and thus by this Board, is that "[a] prima facie case               
          of obviousness is established when the teachings from the                   
          prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed                 
          subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art."  In               
          re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA                   

                    Essentially for the reasons stated by appellants in               
          their brief (pages 4-9), we find that the examiner's rejection              
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 is in error.  Like appellants, we find                
          nothing in the references applied by the examiner which                     
          teaches or suggests appellants' claimed brake band and lining               
          wherein  the cavities formed in the lining on the side of the               
          bonding surface thereof are "sealed from an external oil                    
          source during operation," as required in both independent                   
          claims 10 and 16 on appeal.  The examiner's attempt to use the              
          teaching at column 3, lines 21-34, of Rogers for supplying                  
          this deficiency is unavailing, because Rogers has nothing to                
          do with a cavity formed in a lining and located in the manner               
          set forth in appellants' claims on appeal.                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007