Appeal No. 96-3202
Application No. 08/183,464
combine the references absent the application of impermissible
hindsight. However, it is our opinion as set forth above that
the applied prior art does provide the suggestion or
motivation to make the selection made by the appellants. The
extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or may be
fairly inferred from, the references, is decided on the facts
of each case, in light of the prior art and its relationship
to the appellants' claimed invention. It is our determination
that Oda and Rao suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of modifying Shiraya to make the claimed
combination.
Claim 14
We will sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Claim 14 sets forth the same basic elements as claim 1.
In addition claim 14 recites that the cam has a base portion
and a lobe portion and the solid film lubricant is impregnated
and anchored in the porosity of the surfaces of the base
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007