Appeal No. 2002-0491
Application No. 09/287,081
however, contains no evidence that Baltare’s cam support flange
44 is too thin to support a lubrication function, and Baltare
does not teach, or even suggest, that the cam support flange 44
be capable of reverse mounting. The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is
it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any
one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). For the reasons set forth
above, the combined teachings of Baltare and Steiner would have
suggested the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 14.
Claim 5 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites a flange
similar to that recited in claim 14. As explained above, Baltare
meets this limitation.
Claims 7 and 19 depend indirectly and directly from claims 5
and 14, respectively, and further define the retainer as having
four flanges with holes for bolts. Baltare’s retainer ostensibly
has but one flange (flange portion 56) containing four holes for
bolting the retainer to the spider body (see Figures 2 and 3).
As there is nothing in the record to indicate that the four
flanges disclosed and claimed by the appellants solve a stated
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007