Appeal 2007-1314
Application 10/227,933
Oda discloses a reciprocating valve for an internal combustion engine where
the associated valve seat is provided with a rounded contour. The purpose of the
rounded contour is to resist repeated impacts by the valve against the relatively
brittle ceramic material of the high temperature valve seat. The brittle ceramic
lacks toughness, i.e., resistance to impacts.
Bayliss has been cited to establish that it is well known in this art to
manufacture valve components out of polymer materials. We fully credit this
finding of fact by the Examiner.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner bears the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See id. at 1073, 5 USPQ2d at 1598. In so doing, the Examiner is
expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of
the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to these factual determinations,
the Examiner must also provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013