Appeal 2007-0689
Application 10/329,825
Obviousness cannot be established by combining the teachings of
prior art references to produce the claimed invention, absent some
suggestion or incentive to do so. It is impermissible to use the claimed
invention as an instruction manual or “template” to piece together the
teachings of the prior art to establish obviousness of the claimed invention.
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
ANALYSIS
None of the air spring pistons disclosed by Hoffman, Ebert, and
Hillburger is a longitudinal-seam welded tube (FF1, FF2, and FF3). Further,
none of the air spring pistons disclosed by Hoffman, Ebert, and Hillburger is
a simple, hollow, cylindrical tube (FF1, FF2, and FF3). Hoffman’s piston is
a solid member (FF1); Ebert’s piston comprises radially extending stays and,
in at least some embodiments, a solid central body (FF2); and Hillburger’s
piston comprises an inverted generally bowl-shaped configuration including
a base extending radially inwardly from the annular wall and central
supporting structure extending downwardly from the base (FF3).
Accordingly, none of the pistons disclosed by Hoffman, Ebert, and
Hillburger would appear to lend itself to formation as a longitudinal-seam
welded tube by butting and welding the edges of a flat strip, in the manner
taught by Holman. Holman discloses a method for producing simple,
hollow cylindrical tubes and offers no hint or suggestion to use the disclosed
method to produce air spring pistons. We therefore conclude that, absent
hindsight gleaned from Appellants’ Specification and claims, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have found suggestion from the references
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013