Appeal No. 1997-0287
Application 08/263,034
cited references or prior art specifically suggest making
the combination. . . . Such suggestion or motivation to
combine prior art teachings can derive solely from the
existence of a teaching, which one of ordinary skill in
the art would be presumed to know, and the use of that
teaching to solve the same or similar problem which it
addresses.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (Nies, C.J., concurring). It is not required
that there be an express suggestion in Andres to use a fluid
thrust balancing system or an express suggestion in the
Swearingen patents to use the fluid thrust balancing system in
a turbo machine having active magnetic thrust bearings. One
of ordinary skill in the art of designing turbo machinery
would have known that the turbo machine having active magnetic
bearings in Andres had the same problem of variations in axial
thrust as the machine in the Swearingen patents and would have
been motivated to use the fluid thrust balancing system of the
Swearingen patents for the same reason of offsetting the
thrust on the bearings.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown that the rejection is based on
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness. See
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007