Appeal No. 2003-1407
Application No. 09/733,667
from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative
of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on
the selected representative claim”).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner
and the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we refer to the Answer
and the Briefs. Our review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejections
are well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785,
787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We affirm primarily for the reasons advanced by the
Examiner and add the following primarily for emphasis.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Hartzell and Ito. The Examiner has found,
Answer page 3, that Hartzell discloses a method of manufacturing a commutator
which is the same as that claimed. The Examiner asserts the formed commutator of
Hartzell differs from the claimed invention by not specifying the heightwise
dimension of the separating ribs/teeth. (Answer, p. 3).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007