Appeal 2007-1792
Application 10/050,834
neither Appellant’s Specification nor Appellant’s arguments present any evidence
that the addition of a fastening means for fastening a retaining member to a
housing of a ball joint is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art. Moreover, the fastening means of Maughan is a technique that has been
used to improve one device (the ball joint of Maughan), and one of skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same manner.
Because Appellant has not shown that the application of the Maughan fastening
means to the ball joint of Scheublein, Jr. would have been beyond the skill of one
of skill in the art, we find using the technique would have been obvious. Under
those circumstances, the Examiner did not err in holding that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify the ball joint of Scheublein, Jr. with a fastening means, as taught by
Maughan, for the purpose of fastening the retaining member in the housing of the
ball joint. Because this is a case where the improvement is no more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, no
further analysis was required by the Examiner. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82
USPQ2d at 1396.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013