Appeal No. 1998-2442
Application No. 08/155,987
a barrier to oil migrating along shaft 18 (id., lines 3 and
4), as well as serving to hold collar (drive ring) 70 in
position during assembly (id., lines 9 and 10).
The examiner takes the position that (answer, page 4):
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art at the time of the invention to provide the
pressed fiber seal 82 of Brezosky in compressible
form to facilitate assembly and/or ease
manufacturing tolerances. An assembly operation
using flexible parts involves less force than one
where parts are deformed or press fit together.
Also parts that are flexible do not have to be
manufactured to the same tolerances as parts which
are not and must closely fit together, such as parts
to be press fit together.
We do not consider this rejection to be well taken. In the
first place, the PTO has the burden under § 103 to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, and generally can satisfy
this burden only by providing evidence of a suggestion,
teaching or motivation to modify the prior art. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999) and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A rejection under § 103 must rest
on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted
without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007