Appeal No. 1998-0990
Application 08/327,389
the actuator arm being coated with a low-friction material.
Appellant argues that the simultaneous coating of both the ramp
230 and the actuator arm 217 with a low-friction material in the
region of contact between these parts is an important feature of
Appellant’s invention. Appellant argues that Morehouse fails to
teach a low-friction coating applied to the actuator arm.
Appellant further argues that such arrangement is nowhere even
suggested in the Morehouse patent. See page 8 of the Brief.
In response, the Examiner states on page 6 of the
Answer that Morehouse clearly suggests in column 5, lines 52-64,
that materials and coating can be used for the actuator and the
ramp. The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the
art looking to the disclosure of Morehouse would find it obvious
to utilize the disclosed low-friction coating and material in the
actuator of Morehouse.
When determining obviousness, “the [E]xaminer can
satisfy the burden of showing obviousness of the combination
‘only by showing some objective teaching in the prior art or
that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art would lead that individual to combine the relevant
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007