Appeal No. 97-0986
Application 08/430,580
Further, assuming that Saunders is analogous art, it would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eckart in the manner proposed in view of
Saunders. We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either Eckart or
Saunders which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Eckart
apparatus by adding a blade located to be received within an armature core slot, other
than the hindsight provided to one who first views appellants’ disclosure. Hindsight
reconstruction, however, is not a proper basis for establishing the obviousness of the
subject matter of claims. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784
(Fed. Cir. 1992). Simply put, there is no suggestion in either Eckart or Saunders, or need
in view of their divergent objectives, for their combination. Smolen, additionally relied upon
by the examiner, does not make up for the deficiencies of Eckart and Saunders in this
regard. This constitutes a second reason necessitating reversal of the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 and 12.
Finally, even if we were to consider that it would have been obvious to provide a
“blade” of the type disclosed by Saunders at element 56 in Eckart, the claimed subject
matter would not ensue. This is so because neither Eckart nor Saunders teach locating a
blade on one of the support assemblies “extending therefrom toward the other of said
support assemblies,” much less locating the blade such that “it is received within . . . one of
the armature core slots . . . so that the rotary orientation of said armature shaft is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007