Appeal No. 1998-2001
Application No. 08/408,688
have at least four magnets, and to omit one magnet gives rise
to the presumption that the Curtis system then would be
inoperative for the purpose intended, absent evidence that
such would not be the case. This, in our opinion, would have
been a disincentive to the artisan of such magnitude as to
negate motivation to make the modification offered by the
examiner.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of
Curtis fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in independent
claims 31, 35
and 48. The rejection of these claims thus is not sustained,
along with the rejection of claims 32-34, 41, 45-47 and 49.
Zimmerman, which was added to Curtis in the rejection of
dependent claims 36, 37, 40 and 42, Ambrose, added with regard
to dependent claims 38 and 39, and Ito, added with regard to
claims 43 and 44, fail to provide teachings that would
overcome the shortcoming of Curtis. Thus, the rejections of
the these claims also are not sustained.
In view of our agreement with the appellant that the
teachings of the references do not support a prima facie case
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007