Appeal No. 2003-0025
Application No. 09/019,871
Additionally, we find that the examiner’s reliance upon the teachings of Sekyra to teach
and suggest the use of a unitary stop for the brush would have been obvious to those
skilled in the art since the stop prevents the brush from advancing further than desired.
Therefore, we find a motivation to combine the three references. Appellants argue that
the examiner’s failure to provide a common strand in the three references further
indicates the use of impermissible hindsight. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with
appellants as discussed above. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 9 and its dependent claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 which appellants elected to group
therewith.
With respect to independent claim 19, appellants again argue that the examiner
has failed to show a logical nexus and that there is no logical connection that the
constant force in Poet would be used for in Sugai alone of in combination with Cousins.
(See brief at pages 6-7.) As discussed above, we disagree with appellants. Appellants
argue that there is no need for a constant force in Sugai as suggested by the examiner.
As discussed above, we find sufficient motivation for optimizing the brush life in the
system of Sugai as taught and suggested by Poet and as discussed above. Therefore,
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 19.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 5-9, 11, 12, and
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007