Appeal No. 97-0984
Application 08/546,345
as long as they are in a normal range. Appellant argues that
this purpose of Crafts is unlikely to lead to power
conservation [brief, page 7]. We agree with appellant.
There is no evidence on this record that the Crafts inverter
would result in any power savings if substituted for the
inverters of Shay or Mahabadi. Thus, the motivation asserted
by the examiner for combining the teachings of Crafts with
either Shay or Mahabadi is not suggested by any of the
applied references. Therefore, the only reason to make the
substitution proposed by the examiner would be to improperly
reconstruct the invention in hindsight based on appellant’s
own disclosure. Since we find no suggestion within the
applied prior art for combining their teachings in the
claimed manner, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1. Consequently, we also do not sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2-4.
Although appellant makes several additional arguments
regarding the propriety of the rejection even if Crafts is
properly combined with Shay or Mahabadi, we need not consider
these arguments in view of our determination above that there
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007