Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
The appellant’s invention is directed to the attachment
of a retaining spring to a friction pad of a disc brake. The
appellant characterized the state of the prior art to include
attaching these two elements together by providing the
friction pad with a projection having a D-shaped cross
section, which was installed in a D-shaped opening in the
spring plate, whereafter the elements were fixed together by
riveting the projection. According to the appellant, this
technique had a number of disadvantages, including requiring
that a high level of force be applied to deform the projection
during riveting and very close tolerances in the manufacture
of the parts, while producing a poor anti-rotation connection
between the two elements (see substitute specification, pages
3-5; Brief, pages 14-17).
All of the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The guidance provided by our reviewing court in evaluating the
issue of the obviousness of the invention in view of the
teachings of the applied prior art is as follows: The initial
burden of establishing a basis for denying patentability to a
claimed invention rests upon the examiner. See In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007