Appeal No. 2004-1171
Application No. 09/754,618
traditional product characteristics. See In re Hallman, 55 F.2d
212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981) and In re Luck, 476 F.2d
650, 653, 177 USPQ 523, 525 (CCPA 1973).
In the present case, it readily appears to us that the
evidence of obviousness, in particular the Niina patent, would
have been suggestive of the now claimed disks made by a non-
cutting shaping process by its teaching of a shaped bearing ring
produced by “press-work” (column 4, lines 18 through 22). Thus,
the claimed product, i.e, the thrust ball bearing of claim 4 and
the scroll compressor of claim 10 would have been obvious. As to
claims 5 and 11, we simply note that, of course, one having
ordinary skill in the art would have expected the press-work to
proceed at typical shaping speeds. Nevertheless, we are of the
opinion that the specific speed of shaping, as claimed, would not
effect a discernible feature (difference) in a final product and,
thus, the final product would not be distinguishable from the
prior art.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007