Appeal No. 2006-0600 6
Application No. 10/163,249
With an eye toward improving the axial load capability of the
suspension mount of Overby, we are of the opinion that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant’s invention to provide the suspension mount of Overby
with an improved bushing apparatus like that of Dawda, in place of
the bushing (18), and wherein the insert member of such bushing
apparatus is fully encompassed by the material of the elastomeric
bushing, as in Cummings, for the self-evident purpose of protecting
the metal insert member from exposure to the harsh environment,
e.g., road chemicals used for snow and ice removal, etc., that can
be present under a motor vehicle.
As for appellant’s argument that the examiner’s combination of
the applied prior art does not address the same problem confronted
by appellant, i.e., elimination of bushing walkout, we note that
the purpose proposed as the reason why an artisan would have found
the claimed subject matter to have been obvious based on the
teachings of the prior art need not be identical to the purpose or
problem which appellant indicates to be the basis for having made
the invention in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. As long as some reasonable motivation or suggestion
to combine the references is provided by the applied prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007