Appeal No. 96-3961
Application No. 08/295,268
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner, as the
basis for the obviousness rejection, seeks to modify Japanese
patent ‘240 by relying on Ota to supply the missing teaching of
a reinforcing plate provided on the opposite side of a
substrate from a hub portion. In the Examiner’s view, the
desire to increase stability of the hub arrangement of Japanese
patent ‘240 would serve as a motivating factor to one of
ordinary skill to add a reinforcing plate as taught by Ota.
In response, Appellant attacks the Examiner’s
characterization of the Figure 9 hub 31 of Ota as a reinforcing
plate. Additionally, Appellant contends that Ota’s hub
arrangement does not include a reinforcing plate on the
opposite side of a substrate from a hub portion.
Upon careful review of the cited references, we agree with
both of the above assertions of Appellant. In our opinion,
there is nothing in the disclosure of Ota to suggest that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007