Appeal No. 1999-0365
Application 08/601,724
mounted transaxles can be tested [brief, pages 12-13].
We again agree with the position argued by appellant.
The examiner’s proposed modification of Weeder so that Weeder
can work with longitudinally mounted transaxles does not come
from Weeder. The only basis on this record to modify Weeder
in the manner proposed by the examiner would be to improperly
create appellant’s invention in hindsight. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of independent claim 72 or of claims
73-77 which depend therefrom.
We now consider the rejection of claims 11 and 12
based on the teachings of Weeder and Kuwahara. These claims
depend from claim 1 and additionally recite an eddy current
device. Kuwahara was cited by the examiner only to meet the
claim limitations related to the eddy current device.
Kuwahara does not overcome the basic deficiencies of Weeder
discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 12.
We now consider the rejection of claims 19, 20, 29,
31, 45, 46, 49, 59, 61 and 64-68 based on the teachings of
Weeder, Kuwahara and Sano. In addition to the teachings of
Weeder and Kuwahara discussed above, the examiner cites Sano
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007