Appeal No. 96-3202
Application No. 08/183,464
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the appellants' invention to utilize the solid
film lubricant of Rao (which impregnates the surface) for the8
solid film lubricant on the outer surfaces of the cam and the
tappet to further decrease friction.
The arguments advanced by the appellants (brief, pp. 14-
18 and reply brief, pp. 3-4) do not persuade us that claim 1
is unobvious over the applied prior art for the following
reasons. First, as to the appellants arguments regarding the
deficiencies of each reference on an individual basis, we note
that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon
a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lastly, the appellants argue that there is no suggestion to
8Particularly since the solid film lubricant disclosed by
Rao is basically the same as the solid film lubricant
disclosed by the appellants, there is a reasonable basis to
conclude that the solid film lubricant 35 of Rao is inherently
stable to temperatures at about 700°F. to retain a low
coefficient of friction and promote rapid formation of a
stable oil film to reduce friction.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007