Appeal No. 1999-1721 Page 8
Application No. 08/734,125
illustrated in Figures 3-11 appear from the cross-hatching thereof to be made of metal . 4
Moreover, Hara discloses (column 1, lines 7-21) that the linear motion rolling guide unit of the
invention is applicable to sliding portions of "machining tools, precision processing equipment
and testing equipment" and is such that "a relatively heavy equipment is mounted on a slider"
which is moved backward and forward on the track rails. In view of this disclosure, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a very strong and rigid material,
such as a metal, for the track rails to bear the weight of the equipment moved thereon. This5
accords with the general principle that the selection of a known material based upon its
suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin,
227 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 35 and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 2, 3 and 7 and
reversed as to claims 6, 35 and 37. A new rejection of claim 6 is entered pursuant to the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
4See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 608.02, page 600-84 (Seventh Edition, July 1998).
5An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose (see
In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness may be made
from "common knowledge and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of those practicing in the
art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007