Appeal No. 2005-0189 Page 5
Application No. 09/683,997
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, pages 3 and 4) is that
Naoki1 shows, inter alia, a permanent magnet-type three-phase AC
rotary electric machine including a parallel circuit formed by
connecting a plurality of series circuits in parallel, but that
Naoki does not show the cores (3) of each series being encircled
by alternately wound coils. To overcome this deficiency of
Naoki, the examiner turns to Nishio for a teaching of cores (C1-
C18) of series circuits being encircled by alternately wound
coils (figure 7 and figures 10A-10C). The examiner asserts
(answer, page 4) that “[s]ince Naoki and Nishio et al. are all
from the same field of endeavor; the purpose disclosed by one
inventor would have been recognized in the pertinent art of the
others.” The examiner concludes (id.) that it would have been
obvious to an artisan to encircle the cores of each of the series
1
1In determining the teachings of Naoki, we will rely on the translation
provided by the USPTO. A copy of the translation is attached for the
appellants' convenience.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007