Appeal No. 2002-1569 Page 4
Application No. 09/356,431
correct, and that no suggestion exists to modify Heidenreich in the manner proposed by
the examiner.
The 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).
Heidenreich discloses a wet disc brake for vehicles which comprises a brake
cavity having a sealed housing within which are a plurality of non-rotating brake discs
connected to the housing interspersed with a plurality of rotating brake discs connected
to the hub to be braked. The housing is filled with fluid for the purposes of prolonging
the life of the brake and reducing its operating temperature (column 1, lines 28-30).
The braking force in the Heidenreich system is provided by a plurality of springs 68
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007