Appeal No. 97-2142
Application 08/114,896
incorporate the disparate solenoid-type magnetic structure of
Ootsuka into the instrument of Oberhardt as the examiner
proposes. This is particularly the case since Oberhardt, in
order to provide for a reorientation of the magnetic particles
over a period of time, cycles the power supply 199 to his
stationary magnetic structure 195, 196 on and off at a desired
frequency (see, e.g., column 37, lines 34-36). On the other
hand, if the solenoid-type magnetic structure of Ootsuka were
bodily incorporated into the instrument of Oberhardt as the
examiner has proposed, Ootsuka’s movable “first leg” or core
portion 4 would reciprocate each time the power supply 199 was
turned on and off. It is unclear, however, how such a
reciprocating structure would be incorporated into the instrument
of Oberhardt so as to perform the function of reorienting the
magnetic particles in the manner necessary to the operation of
Oberhardt’s instrument.
As to the examiner’s statement that it would have been
obvious to substitute “one known equivalent magnet for another,”
we must point out that, even if it was somehow established that a
solenoid-type magnetic structure was the equivalent of a sta-
ionary magnetic structure, it is well settled that equivalency
does not establish obviousness. See In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007