Appeal No. 2002-0354 Page 6
Application No. 09/293,455
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F3d 1305,
1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “‘[T]he question is whether there is
something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination.’” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may flow from
the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or,
in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. . . .” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Imports Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, we find that evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine
flows from the references themselves. Dafler relates to "bearing support . . . for small
dynamoelectric machines of the type having a rotor shaft. . . ." Col. 1, ll. 5-8. More
specifically, "[a] thrust collar 84 formed by a metal ring having a tight interference fit with
the shaft end 76 is press fitted on the terminal section of the shaft end 76." Col. 4,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007