Appeal No. 1997-3709
Application 08/582,034
thermally balanced structure. In so doing, we consider that
the ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate from a full
understanding of Wirth’s teachings that thermally balancing
the brake rotor of the modified Figure 4 brake rotor of Soltis
may be realized by tapering the inside surface of each of the
plates of the friction disk, thereby resulting in the subject
matter of claims 7-10.
Having concluded that the collective teachings of Soltis
and Wirth are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, we recognize that appellants’ evidence of
nonobviousness, i.e., the declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 of
coinventor Robert S. Sporzynski, must be considered en route
to a final determination of obviousness/nonobviousness under
35 U.S.C. 103. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,713 F.2d
1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Sporzynski declaration is for the most part directed
to declarant’s opinions regarding the examiner’s obviousness
rejection based on Wirth and Herbulot. Accordingly, these
opinions are simply not relevant to our new § 103 rejection
based on Soltis and Wirth. The only parts of the Sporzynski
declaration that possibly relate our new § 103 rejection are
-21-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007