Appeal No. 2004-0202
Application No. 09/719,014
does not establish obviousness, unless the prior art suggested
the desirability of the modification. See In re Gordon, supra.
Appellant argues that the characteristics of metal and nylon rims
are not the same (Brief, page 6), and we agree that the examiner
has not established on this record that one of ordinary skill in
this art would have been led to use the interengagement means
taught by Sutowski for nylon portions with the metal rims of the
admitted prior art Figures 1-4.
Additionally, we note that the examiner has not shown that
the deformations of the surface of the second portion, as
required by claim 11 on appeal, have been disclosed or suggested
by the admitted prior art or Sutowski. Sutowski merely shows a
molded inner radial edge portion 22 and web portion 12 (see
Figure 3).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the reference evidence. Therefore we need not consider
appellant’s submission of the Wilding Declaration dated
Oct. 16, 2002, Paper No. 16 (Brief, page 4). See In re Geiger,
815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we can not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007