Appeal No. 2005-1543 3
Application No. 09/907,462
OPINION
There is no dispute that Quenneville describes a starter having a housing (gear
housing 12), a planetary gear assembly (30) within that housing, and a shaft (stationary
shaft 33) within the planetary gear assembly as required by claim 8 and as found by the
Examiner (Answer, pp. 3-4). There is also no dispute that Dodd describes subjecting
bearing components made from high speed steel, such as M50 alloy steel, to a nitriding
process in order to improve wear resistance, resistance to debris damage, and rolling
contact fatigue resistance as further found by the Examiner (Answer, pp. 4-5). The
Examiner further finds that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
utilize the materials of Dodd in the structure of Quenneville in order to provide the gas
turbine engine bearing components (including the shaft) of Quenneville with the
desirable properties taught in Dodd.” (Answer, p. 5). The Examiner has found all of the
claimed elements within the prior art and advanced a finding of a suggestion to
combine those elements based on objective evidence within the prior art teachings.
Therefore, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (there must be "some objective teaching in the prior art or
that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references").
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007