Appeal No. 1999-1530 Page 5
Application No. 08/728,607
applying the test for obviousness , the examiner then 5
concluded (answer, p. 5) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have
provided the brake hydraulic controller of Ohta et al.
with the seal arrangement as taught by '9970 [Tsuzuki] as
an alternate means of securing the cover to the base.
The appellants have not contested the obviousness
conclusion made by the examiner. However, the appellants do
argue that the resulting combination would not have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
In that regard, the appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-8)
that Ohta does not disclose a cover as recited in claim 1.
Specifically, the appellants point out that Ohta's cover 38 is
not readable on the following part of claim 1
a cover attached to the base and having a surface, said
surface having a downwardly extending rim extending about
an edge of said surface and being positioned about a
periphery of said base such that said surface covers the
5The 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007