Appeal 2006-1324
Application 09/882,127
17, 148 USPQ at 467). “Against this background, the Board determines
whether the subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the asserted invention.” Id. (citing Graham, 383
U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ 467).
When the examiner does not include a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the examiner’s statement of the rejection, we infer that the
examiner has used hindsight to conclude the invention was obvious. See
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986, 78 USPQ2d at 1335.
ANALYSIS
Based on our factual findings outlined above, we do not find any
teaching, suggestion or motivation for the Examiner’s combination of
references. We find that the references comprise a parts list with a
generalized teaching about Wiegand wires. In the context of electric motors,
von der Heide mentions that Hall effect transducers and Wiegand wire
transducers may be used to determine rotor position. Hinke discloses that a
Wiegand effect transducer could be used in a distributor in an automobile.
Normann is concerned with greater output of the Wiegand transducer to go
to an optical circuit. Yeoman shows a Wiegand wire as a generator of
electricity.
While von der Heide mentions Hall effect and Wiegand effect
transducers together, and Hinke discloses Wiegand effect transducers in
ignition circuitry where Hall effect transducers are common, these are both
industrial applications that are far afield of the diagnostic milieu of the
admitted prior art. None of the references provides information that the
Wiegand effect transducer would be either safe or effective when used in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013