Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 10
Application No. 08/543,153
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 2 through 7, 10, 11 and 14 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
The obviousness issues
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, but not the rejection of claims 8 and 9.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 12 and 13
The examiner found (answer, pp. 4-5) that
[i]n discussing the prior art, Duffy discloses a known
power steering mechanism and valve substantially as
claimed. It is noted that the filing date of Duffy is
not earlier than Appellant's priority date, however,
Duffy discloses that the assembly was disclosed in patent
4,570,736 which issued in 1986, well before Appellant's
priority date.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007