Appeal No. 2003-1155 Page 3
Application No. 08/821,995
Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months
from the date of the original decision . . . .
We therefore deferred the effective date of our affirmance of the rejection of
claims 1 to 3, 5 to 10 and 12 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 until conclusion of the
proceedings before the examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited proceedings,
the affirmed rejection was overcomed. Since the proceedings before the examiner did
result in a second appeal, this case is before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences for final action on the affirmed rejections of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 10 and 12 to
17.
In response to our remand, the examiner rejected claims 4 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Malott in view of Di Palma (see Paper No.
18, mailed December 17, 2001 and Paper No. 20, mailed June 4, 2002).2 In this
rejection, the examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a DC electrical
motor operable with a maximum drive voltage of from about 12 to about 24 volts, since
it was known in the art to size the drive voltage of a DC electrical motor and battery
power supply depending on the type application or use in which the motor is to be
2 The Office action mailed December 17, 2001 did not include the approval of the Technology
Center Director. MPEP §§ 1002.02(c) and 1214.04 appear to require such approval.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007