Appeal No. 1999-1065
Application No. 08/754,379
establish the prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention,
all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the
prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583
(CCPA 1974).
Independent claim 25 calls for a friction wear pad for a
caliper disk brake including, inter alia, an elongated body
portion formed from a pair of wear pad halves with each half
having a pair of partial depth bores therein and a pin
disposed in each bore to join the halves together. Similar
language is found in claim 32, dependent on claim 21.
The examiner determined that Everett discloses the
invention substantially as claimed in claims 25 and 32, except
for “the use of a pair of pads sandwiched together by the use
of a pin.” See answer, p. 3. The examiner describes each of2
Roth and Chin as teaching “a brake wear pad comprising a pair
of wear halves joined together by the use of a pin.” Id. The
examiner then concluded that it would have been obvious to
make the brake pad of Everett of a pair of wear halves joined
2We note that claims 25 and 32 also require a pair of
wear pad halves with each half having a pair of partial depth
bores therein. The examiner has not identified where the pair
of partial depth bores is taught in the applied prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007