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
1976).
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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007