Appeal No. 2002-0500 Page 10
Application No. 09/258,320
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 prior art references and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
We agree with the examiner's finding that constructing the frame-housing of AAPA with
a unitary thrust supporter on its bottom face would have reduced the number of
components during assembly of the fan motor. (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 10.) More
specifically, two of the AAPA's components, viz., its "thrust plate 106 and thrust
sheet 107," (Spec. at 1-2), would have been replaced by a single component from
Takahashi, viz., the reference's thrust bearing element 20.
For their part, the appellants do not contest that "[t]he number of parts in
Takahashi may, with respect to this particular arrangement, be fewer," (Reply Br. at 2),
but merely opine that the entire mounting arrangement of Takahashi "seems more
complicated and difficult to manufacture." (Id.) "What appellants overlook is that it is
not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render
obvious the invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007