Appeal No. 96-3961
Application No. 08/295,268
hub 31 serves to reinforce the substrate in any manner.
Further, there is no reasonable interpretation of the hub
construction illustrated in Figure 9 that would support a
finding that a reinforcing plate is provided on opposite sides
of a substrate from a hub portion as claimed. We further agree
with Appellant’s stated position (Brief, page 7) as to the
Examiner’s failure to establish proper motivation for the
proposed combination of references. It is our view that, even
assuming arguendo that the hub structure of Ota could be
considered to include a reinforcing plate situated on the
opposite side of a substrate from a hub portion, no motivation
exists for modifying the Japanese patent ‘240 in the manner
suggested by the Examiner. There is nothing in the disclosure
of Japanese patent ‘240 to indicate that lack of stability was
ever a problem. The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The only basis
for applying Ota’s teachings to the Japanese patent ‘240 device
comes from an improper attempt to reconstruct Appellant's
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007