Appeal No. 2005-1543 6
Application No. 09/907,462
argument is not convincing for several reasons. First, the prior art indicates that there
would have been a reasonable expectation of success in using the high hardness
material in bearing components. In fact, improved properties such as improved wear
resistance, resistance to debris damage, and rolling contact fatigue resistance would
have been expected (Dodd, p. 3, ll. 7-10). Cost might be a consideration for
commercialization, but cost does not provide evidence of non-obviousness in the
present context in view of the evidence of a reasonable expectation of success.
Appellant’s cost argument also seems to assume that Quenneville identifies a
material for the bearing components taught therein. But that is not the case.
Quenneville is silent with respect to the material of the shaft or, for that matter, the
material of any of the other bearing members. One of ordinary skill in the art would
have looked to other prior art for teachings of suitable materials. Dodd teaches such a
suitable material.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 8, 9, and 12 which has not
been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8, 9, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007