Appeal No. 98-1447
Application 08/385,356
board makes the determination that it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute a liquid
for air in the bearing of Unterberger, based upon the
knowledge in the art as reflected in the teaching of Blizard.
As we see it, the motivation on the part of one having
ordinary skill for making this modification would have simply
been to obtain the expected benefit of a liquid, when the
known compressibility disadvantage of air would be adverse for
a particular use. Our position on this matter presumes skill,
of course, on the part of those practicing this art, not the
converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The argument of appellant in the main and reply briefs
does not persuade us of error on the part of the examiner in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Unlike appellant
(main brief, page 12), we concluded, supra, that the combined
teachings of the applied references would have been suggestive
of using liquid with the bearing of Unterberger and thereby
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007