Appeal No. 2005-0375 Application No. 09/826,422 corrected any such problems in Heidelberg according to the teaching value of any one or all of the three variables in Acquaviva to improve or otherwise minimize cogging torque problems. As such, the Acquaviva teachings provide to the artisan only general guidance to a problem that may or may not exist in Heidelberg’s motor. Acquaviva provides evidence that there are a plurality of conditions under which the cogging torque may be improved, yet it is extremely problematic as to what the effect any teachings of Acquaviva would have on the relatively specifically defined relationships of the parts making up the motor in Heidelberg. All of these considerations are involved in the nature of an obvious to try rationale as noted in In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Another manner in which to characterize the examiner’s motivation analysis is that it appears to be based upon hindsight since from our view of the evidence, there appears to be no basis to question the integrity of the Heidelberg motor from an artisan’s perspective such as to suggest it -8-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007