Appeal No. 97-3201
Application No. 08/360,866
There is no explicit teaching in the Japanese reference
that the first and second gears of the idlers have different
numbers of teeth, much less that they be arranged on the two
gear sets in the manner specified. Moreover, since the first
and second gears of each of the idlers appear from the
drawings to be of the same diameter, in the absence of
amplifying information the presumption is that each has the
same number of teeth, in our view. For these reasons, we
agree with the appellant that the Japanese reference fails to
disclose all of the subject matter recited in the claim, and
thus the rejection on the basis of anticipation cannot be
sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). However, the mere fact that the prior
art structure could be modified does not make such a
modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007