Appeal 2006-3366
Application 10/864,041
Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Furthermore,
“‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Further, as pointed out
by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the claim.
“[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations as recited and disputed in independent claim 1.
At the outset, we note the following claim interpretation. Here, we
note that independent claim 1 is directed to a single machine
(“dynamoelectric machine”) which meets the enumerated limitations. We
find the instant range of Slots per Phase per Pole ratio (SPP) to be alternative
embodiments of the recited dynamoelectric machine since each individual
machine when constructed has a single SPP which does not change unless
the physical number of poles, number of slots, or number of phases of the
dynamoelectric machine change. Since that does not happen in the physical
dynamoelectric machine, the SPP does not change. There is only one SPP
per dynamoelectric machine. Therefore, if the prior art teaches or suggests a
SINGLE dynamoelectric machine that falls within this range, then we find
the claimed invention (machine) to be taught or suggested by that prior art.
Additionally, we note that the preamble of independent claim 1 does not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013