Appeal No. 2006-0711
Application No. 10/407,020
directed to solving the same problem or have the same motivation
as appellants in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We fail to determine any basis for
appellants’ argument that the trapezoidal profile shown in
Figures 2 and 3 of vom Schemm “clearly show the opposite
dimensional geometry,” namely deep and narrow recesses (Brief,
page 4). To the contrary, we note that the width and depth of
the trapezoidal profile of the grooves in the reference are about
equal, although there is no disclosure or teaching in vom Schemm
that the drawings are to scale. Regardless of the width and
depth depicted in the Figures of vom Schemm, it is well settled
that the optimization of various operational parameters, i.e.,
the shape of the grooves, is prima facie obvious absent a showing
of unexpected results. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,
16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, we
determine that vom Schemm teaches that “the geometry of the
recesses [i.e., grooves] embossed through the shaft seal ring
according to the invention can be varied in accordance with the
purposes of application of the shaft seal ring” (col. 2, l. 66-
col. 3, l. 1, italics added). We also determine that vom Schemm
also teaches that “[t]he recesses have the shape of threaded
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007