Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
teachings, but also the inferences which one of ordinary skill
in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter
recited in independent claim 1 is disclosed by Gumkowski,
except for the specific cross-sections of the opening in the
retaining spring and the projection of the pad back plate,
which are shown by Feller, and that it would have been obvious
to modify Gumkowski to meet the terms of the independent
claims in view of the teachings of Feller. In the arguments
placed before us in the Brief, the appellant has not disputed
this conclusion by the examiner, but has chosen only to argue
that the decision that the claim is obvious is overcome by
evidence of unexpected results. From our perspective,
therefore, the appellant has acknowledged that the references
properly are combinable and that their combined teachings
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of the claims to which this rejection has been
applied.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007