Appeal No. 2004-1171
Application No. 09/754,618
of appellants’ invention, of through-hardened (heat treated)
bearing steel components. In applying the test for obviousness,4
we reach the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art, from a combined consideration
of the applied prior art teachings, to utilize a through-
hardenable bearing steel as the material for the steel bearing
rings of Niina. In our opinion, one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to use known through-hardenable
bearing steel (Volkmuth and Technical Book) with the invention of
Niina since this material would permit hardening to any depth
(inclusive of through hardening), the intended objective of
Niina. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 7 is
determined to be sound. We also find ample suggestion in the
applied prior art, in particular the Volkmuth and Technical Book
references, for the materials of claims 2, 3, 8, and 9. The
content of claim 6 would have been suggested by the scroll
compressor disclosure of Niina.
4 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007