Appeal No. 2005-0189 Page 7
Application No. 09/683,997
force or counter electromotive force) by providing alternately
wound coils. Appellants do not dispute the examiner's assertion
that alternately wound coils are well known in the art. However,
appellants maintain (brief, page 3) that “the art does not teach
that Naoki et al’s construction could be improved by using the
alternately wound coils.” It is argued (brief, page 4) that
“[t]he Nishio et al reference does not teach or suggest that it
could be used to reduce the circulating current in circuits
having parallel circuits comprised of series wound coils. Thus
the teaching for making this modification is not taught by the
prior art” and (id.) that “[t]he combination is only obvious
after one sees appellants’ invention and hindsight reasoning is
not permitted to support a rejection under 35 USC 103.”
We agree. From the disclosure of Nishio, we find, as
appellants and the examiner found, that Nishio teaches the
desirability of alternately winding cores, but does teach doing
so in the context of a parallel circuit formed of series circuits
connected in parallel. A teaching of using alternately wound
cores to minimize cogging in a circuit that does not have
parallel circuits of serially wound coils, is not a suggestion of
using alternately wound coils in the series circuits that
comprise a parallel circuit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007