Appeal No. 2001-2566 Page 6
Application No. 09/655,092
compressed against the sides of the roadway. Getsay discloses
a track and a plurality of spindles 90, 92, 94, 96 and a
driven wheel 154 which engage the track. However, only one of
the wheels, the driven wheel 154, is resiliently urged toward
the track side by means such as a continuous rubber band 164.
Getsay does not disclose any compression means for causing any
of the spindles to be compressed against the sides of the
track. Thus, Getsay lacks a compression means for causing a
plurality of wheels to be compressed against the sides of the
roadway, as recited in claims 1 and 12.
We have carefully reviewed the teachings of Miller but we
find nothing therein which would have suggested providing a
compression means for causing a plurality of wheels (e.g., the
spindles 90, 92, 94, 96) of Getsay to be compressed against
the sides of the track or roadway. It follows then that the
combined teachings of Getsay and Miller are insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we shall not sustain2
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the2
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art applied (see In
re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85, 180 USPQ 580, 582-83 (CCPA 1974)) and that all
words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art (In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007