Appeal No. 2004-0202
Application No. 09/719,014
it would have been obvious that “the outer portion of bearings 80
in applicant’s prior art figures 1-4 could have grooves formed as
taught by groove 21 of Sutowski which would cooperate with
complimentary surfaces on the inner surface of the hub portion as
taught by 22 of hub 12 of Sutowski.” Paper No. 15, page 2,
italics added. The examiner finds that “at least figures 1 and 4
disclose a metal rim because the rim is peened to enable the rim
to be secured to the bearing.” Id.
The examiner has the initial burden under section 103 of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, and can satisfy
this burden by showing that the objective teachings in the prior
art would have led one of skill in this art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The mere
fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. [Citations omitted].” In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The object of Sutowski is to construct a wheel “taking
advantage of the unique characteristics of nylon” (col. 1, ll.
30-33). To position the bearing unit within the central opening
of the nylon wheel, Sutowski teaches using sufficient force to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007