Appeal No. 1996-1427
Application 08/029,028
electromotive force sensing and comparing and resultant slip correction as claimed. The examiner has
also
failed to sufficiently explain how the applied references would be combined to meet the subject matter
recited in the claims on appeal.
We agree with appellant (Brief, page 8) that there would have been no motivation to compare
an electromotive motor force with a supply voltage in order to increase slip frequency to prevent
clipping. The Answer does not state a ground of rejection, nor does the Answer even refer to a
previous rejection. The only statement of the rejection of record is found at page 3 of the final
rejection. The examiner provides no other motivation for making the combination other than to simply
say that "it would have been obvious [to][sic] progressively increase the slip frequency as taught by
Danz" (final rejection, page 3). We can find no motivation for modifying Cornell or Muskovac with
Danz. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not made a prima facie case of obviousness.
We turn last to appellant’s argument (Brief, page 5) that the rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight. It must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007