Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
repeat the process in order to determine that the blisk is balanced” and that
such a conclusory statement is an improper reason for rejecting the claim.
The issue, therefore, is whether the Examiner properly supported the
conclusion of obviousness.
We are not persuaded that the reason advanced by the Examiner was
improper. Implicit in the disclosure of using conventional balancing, is what
is well known in the art with regard to conducting such balancing.
Balancing on a conventional machine is a reiterative process, it must be
repeated until balance is achieved. The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). The suggestion test “not only permits, but requires,
consideration of common knowledge and common sense.” DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1367-68, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[A] prior art
reference must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding of the
Examiner, therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness that has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants. Appellants have not convinced us of any reversible error by the
Examiner with regard to the rejection of claim 10.
B. The rejection of Claims 2-4 and 11-13
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013