Appeal No. 2001-0038
Application No. 08/992,999
than hindsight gleaned from the invention disclosure,
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227
USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the fact situation before
us, we are unable to agree with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the
teachings of Olson to incorporate an elastic element into
rubber block support 36 of Charron to absorb vibration induced
during braking. It follows that the rejection of claim 1, as
well as claim 2 that depends therefrom, as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Charron and Olson cannot be sustained.
As to claim 3, the Babcock reference additionally applied
in the rejection of this claim does not render obvious what we
have found to be lacking in the combination of Charron and
Olson. The rejection of claim 3 will therefore not be
sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007