Appeal No. 96-3374
Application No. 08/115,974
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 the7
solid film lubricant on the outer surface of Oda's modified
cam to further decrease friction.
The arguments advanced by the appellants (brief, pp. 11-
14 and reply brief, pp. 2-3) 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
combine the references absent the application of impermissible
7Particularly since the solid film lubricant disclosed by
Rao is 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 inherently has an affinity for
oil and promotes rapid formation of a stable oil film to
reduce friction.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007