Appeal 2007-1243
Application 10/336,018
16. From Goodrich’s disclosure, one skilled in the art would recognize that
since the mass of the balls is free to move, the device does not provide a permanent
balance to the rotating object but rather rebalances the rotating object each time the
object is spun.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the references being
combined do not need to explicitly suggest combining their teachings. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the teaching,
motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than
expressly stated in the references”). “The test for an implicit showing is what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.” Id. at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d
1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “rotating the rotating disk by a motor until the
rotating disk reaching balance such that the fluid flows towards the perimeter
direction of the rotating disk due to a vibration force resulting from the rotation of
the rotating disk, the fluid being retained by a side wall of the holder without
escaping, the rotating disk being spaced from the motor” and “curing the fluid”.
Independent claim 13 contains a similar limitation which recites a motor rotating
the disk, and the fluid being cured after balance is attained. Independent claim 19
contains a limitation directed to a holder which contains a curable fluid, where the
fluid flows to the side walls to balance the rotating disk. Thus, the scope of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013