Appeal No. 2003-0514 Page 5
Application No. 09/820,147
in which the hubs were tubular screw machine parts including shoulders and threaded
nut elements for pressing the hub engaging portions of the pulley halves together.
The examiner's rejection
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner determined (answer, p. 4)
that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention to attach the guide tubes of AAPA to the frame by swaging instead of
welding, in light of the teachings of Loper, in order to more securably retain the
guide tube within the aperture of the frame.
The appellants' position
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-5) that the examiner has failed to establish
proper motivation for combining AAPA with Loper as set forth in the rejection under
appeal.
Our determination
In applying the test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we conclude that
there is no motivation or rationale2 in the applied prior art for a person of ordinary skill in
2 When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order to form the claimed
invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art to make the
selection made by the appellants. It is impermissible, however, simply to engage in a hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the appellants' structure as a template and selecting
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007