Appeal No. 2001-0025
Application No. 08/751,980
through-bores (recesses) between the rows of rivets 11 (Fig.
1), following the teaching of Stehle. More specifically, it
is clear to us that the incentive on the part of one having
ordinary skill in the art for making the noted modification
would have simply been to gain the recognized cooling benefit
through-bores or recesses (Fig. 8) would provide, as discussed
by Stehle (column 1, lines 44 through 47).
Appellant acknowledges that Stehle does illustrate
through- bores, but faults the rejection as being hindsight
based since Stehle does not include pins (brief, pages 10 and
11). Therefore, according to appellant, Stehle could not
possibly suggest interposing through-bores in any particular
location with respect to pins in an already ventilated disk
such as in JP ‘327. For the reasons given above, we are not
in accord with appellant’s conclusion that the rejection is
based upon impermissible hindsight. To reiterate the point
made, the combined prior art teachings themselves clearly
would have been suggestive of the addition of through-bores in
the ventilated brake disk of JP ‘327 for cooling purposes.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007