Appeal No. 2001-0294
Application No. 09/004,399
with Sander, could not be activated to brake the motor by using
clock pulses (brief, page 7, reply brief, page 3). With respect
to the speed detector of Aoshima, Appellants urge that although
the speed of the motor can be detected and used for acceleration
or deceleration, nothing in Aoshima teaches the claimed tach
braking circuit for braking the motor (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Sander teaches a motor controller that detects the motor
speed before braking while Davie’s speed sensing circuit 84
relates to the claimed “clock pulses” (answer, pages 7 & 8).
With respect to Aoshima, the Examiner argues that the disclosed
speed detector is used to actuate a brake circuit according to
the desired acceleration or deceleration (answer, pages 10 & 11).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007