Appeal No. 2000-0337
Application No. 08/825,449 Page 9
of the ball bearings is to create a space between the outer race
and the hub. We find no teaching or suggestion, to provide Chuta
with a bonding area having a hub recess because Chuta only
teaches putting the bonding area recess at the location of the
ball bearing, and figure 2 of AAPA already has a recess at this
location. As to positioning the hub bonding area recess axially
between the two ball bearings without being axially aligned with
the ball bearings, we find no teaching or suggestion of these
features, and no convincing line of reasoning has been advanced
by the examiner. We find that the only suggestion for these
features comes from appellants’ disclosure. “Obviousness may not
be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para- Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an
instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings
of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007