Appeal 2007-1460
Application 10/481,336
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. “[T]he
examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground,
of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that “no tightening force at all is applied to the rubber
belt” (emphasis added) of Fukushima therefore the rubber elastic body is not
pressed as required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 5). We disagree
Fukushima discloses that the depth of the holes 24 in the rubber belt unit and
the height of the projected portions of the steel pipes 42 are determined such that
the surface 33 of the rubber belt unit and the outer surface 47 of the substrate 41 of
the lug unit come in contact with each other during tightening (Finding of Fact 5).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013