Appeal No. 96-3374
Application No. 08/115,974
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Oda and claim 1, it
is our opinion that the differences between Oda and claim 1
are the limitations that (1) the cam is made of a plurality of
metal materials wherein the base circle portion and the lobe
portion of the cam are made of a metal material having one
density and the base circle portion has an interior portion
made of another metal material of another density and has a
porosity less than the lobe portion and the remainder of the
base circle portion, and (2) a solid film lubricant is
impregnated in the porosity of the outer surface of the base
circle portion and the lobe portion to promote rapid formation
of a stable oil film to reduce friction.
In applying the above noted test for obviousness, we
reach the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants'
invention to make Oda's cam of two metal layers of different
densities as taught by Hiraoka. Additionally, it would have
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007