Appeal No. 1996-4124
Application No. 08/307,088
A) Analogous art:
Appellant argues that on page 7 of the brief that Hahn
does not disclose grinding adjacent flanks with a grinding
disc. On page 8 of the brief, Appellant states that the
problem solved by the claimed device is different than Hahn’s
device. On page 10 of the brief, Appellant argues that Hahn
relates to cylindrical grinding which is a different surface
of the tooth wheel than the tooth flanks. Further, Appellant
states on page 11 of the brief that Loehrke’s method of
grinding tooth flanks solves a different problem than that
claimed.
In determining whether a claim would have been obvious at
the time of the invention, the Examiner must first determine
the scope and content of the prior art. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). "Although §
103 does not, by its terms, define the 'art to which [the]
subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,' this
determination is frequently couched in terms of whether the
art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is 'too remote
to be treated as prior art.'" In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658,
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007