Appeal No. 1997-0397
Application 07/863,900
controlled by selection of one capacitor instead of redesigning the
motor hardware for different power outputs (Br13-14; RBr2).
The advantages are attributable to the statement in the
"whereby" clause, which we interpret as not patentably distinguishing
over the combination. Moreover, we also find that Gerfast suggests
that the power output of a fixed motor hardware can be preselectively
determined by selection of the appropriate capacitor value, which
provides the same advantages. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness, which Appellants have
not shown to be erroneous. The rejection of claim 66 is sustained.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007