Appeal 2007-1548
Application 10/702,346
The Examiner found, with regard to claim 1:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to provide the
housing of Pepperling with a second hardness less than
the first hardness, to provide the mounting boss of the
pressure port with straight knurls thereon such that the
knurls are oriented parallel to an axis of the pressure port,
to press the mounting boss of the pressure port into the
receptacle of the housing along a direction of the axis
such that the knurls deform the receptacle of the housing
to conform about the knurls to define a semi-rigid mount,
in light of the teachings of Ito, in order to firmly join the
components together by press-fit, and to intimately mesh
the inner and outer surfaces of the components thereby
forming a firm jointing.
(Answer 4.)
The Appellants argue that there would have been no motivation to combine
the teachings of Pepperling and Ito for three reasons. First, the Appellants argue
that because Pepperling does not indicate any defects with its press-fit attachment,
or allege any disadvantage of such an attachment, there would be no reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify it (Appeal
Br. 10; Reply Br. 1). We find this argument unpersuasive. It is not necessary for a
determination of obviousness that the reference to be modified recognize or
acknowledge a deficiency with its own design in order to provide a motivation to
modify or improve it. As noted by the Court in KSR, “if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013