Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set
forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966). 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)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claims 5 and 10
Regarding dependent claim 5, the Examiner’s rejection finds that
Kojima does not disclose shrinking the securing ring onto the end plate to fix
the bandage edge therebetween. The Examiner, however, cites Zigler to
show that such heat shrinking techniques are well known in the art and
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to heat shrink the securing ring onto the rotor of
Kojima for a secure bond (Answer 5). Regarding dependent claim 10, the
Examiner adds that Zigler’s bandage in Figure 10 is inwardly recessed and is
inherently aligned with the securing ring (Answer 6).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013