Appeal No. 2004-0531
Application 09/871/126
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites the feature of the
self-lubricating member having a thickness of up to 2mm.
In applying the test for obviousness,2 we conclude that it
would have been obvious to replace the known lubricated bearings
in a work machine or construction vehicle (Hickman and Hart)3
with known bearings that are self-lubricating (Adinoff).4 As we
see it, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to replace bearings of a work machine needing periodic
lubrication maintenance with self-lubricating bearings, simply to
gain the art recognized benefit of self-lubricating bearings,
i.e., no periodic maintenance (lubrication)is needed. Adinoff
2 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
3 These patents are understood to represent and reflect what
appellants have acknowledged as known work machines in the
background section of the specification (page 1), which machines
include typical bearings which require periodic maintenance
(lubrication).
4 The Adinoff reference is akin to appellants’
acknowledgment (specification, page 5) of known “commercially
available” self-lubricating bearings that are relatively thin,
typically up to and including 2mm.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007