Appeal 2006-3366
Application 10/864,041
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. . . .
A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Here, we find
Appellant’s argument to be unpersuasive. Since we have found the totality
of Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 which have been grouped together
by Appellant.
Additionally, we will sustain the rejection dependent claims 12 and 13
since we find that the narrower range of SPP in dependent claim 12 is taught
or fairly suggested by Hendershot along with the specific SPP value of 0.50
in dependent claim 13 that we find is also taught or fairly suggested by
Hendershot (see Table 3.4 at page 3-10: 9 slots/3 phases/6 poles).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 8, 9, 12-14, and 17, Appellant
argues that the Examiner has not established a proper prima facie case of
obviousness and has not set forth specific citations (Br. 37-38 and Reply Br.
21-22). We find that the Examiner has addressed the limitations in the
Answer at pages 18-19 which Appellant does not address in the Reply Brief.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 4, 8, 9, 12-14, and 17.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, Appellant argues many
facets of flux density, frequency of operation, and power which we do not
find express support for in the language of independent claim 1 nor in the
express limitations of dependent claims 2 and 3 (Br. 39-42). Therefore,
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013