Ex Parte FISCHER et al - Page 3





                 Appeal No. 2002-0342                                                                                   Page 3                     
                 Application No. 09/295,399                                                                                                        



                         Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                             

                 the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer                                              

                 (Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and                                            

                 to the Brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                           

                                                                   OPINION                                                                         

                         In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                                           

                 the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                                         

                 respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence                                            

                 of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                                           

                         Claim 1, the sole independent claim before us on appeal, stands rejected as                                               

                 being obvious2 in view of the combined teachings of the British specification and the                                             

                 German patent.  It is the examiner’s view that the British reference discloses all of the                                         

                 subject matter recited in claim 1, but “does not disclose driving bands formed of a soft                                          

                 iron and a driving band comprising a copper partial driving band located at the front end                                         


                         2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to                         
                 one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881                           
                 (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to                             
                 provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or                      
                 to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,                             
                 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,                             
                 suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of                           
                 ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-                   
                 Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).                             











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007