Appeal 2007-2257
Application 11/118,509
said contact area of said part and to allow said electrical current to travel
across a joint between said contact areas; and
maintaining application of said electrical current and said pressure
until the wrought material forming said replacement section has bonded to
the wrought material of said part.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Bogard US 5,205,465 Apr. 27, 1993
Robertson US 5,272,809 Dec. 28, 1993
The following ground of rejection is the sole rejection on appeal to be
reviewed:
Claims 8-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Bogard in view of Robertson.
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the referenced evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the § 103 rejection presented in this appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the record, as well as those reasons set forth below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[A]nalysis
[of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013