Appeal 2007-1792
Application 10/050,834
“[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated
from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious
where others would not.” Id. at 1161, 82 USPQ2d at 1690-91 (citing KSR, 127
S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”)). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that
Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined
device was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mizusawa in view of Edwards.
Appellant argues that “[t]he references that the Examiner relies on deal with
ball joints in which the balls are held in the housing using mechanical means while
the device of the instant invention does not use mechanical means to hold the ball
in the housing, but instead, uses the pressure of lubricating grease to maintain the
ball in the housing” (Br. 3). Appellant asserts that the Specification teaches that
the lubrication port not only is the means for adding lubricants to the open space
formed by the truncated ball, but also is a means of holding the ball in the housing
without mechanical means (Br. 4). However, Appellant’s argument is inapposite,
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013