Appeal No. 1998-0507
Application No. 08/457,701
While appellants argue that the different types of motors of the references would
preclude their combination, appellants never explain why these teachings would not have
suggested the placement of a current limiting capacitor at the input to the rectifier in
Morinaga. Appellants argue (principal brief-page 11) that Morinaga and Müller
provide for speed control and that Gerfast provides for a current limiting capacitor but that
only appellants provide for both. In the face of these teachings, appellants do not explain
why the combination would not result in a circuit providing both speed control and a current
limiting capacitor, as in the instant invention.
It is our view that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to claims 76-87 over the combination of Morinaga, Gerfast and Müller and that
appellants have not overcome this prima facie case. Accordingly, we will sustain this
rejection.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 21, 22 and 76-87 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Sato, Kitajewski and Schaefer but we have sustained the rejection of claims 76-
87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Morinaga, Gerfast and Müller.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007