Appeal No. 1996-1427
Application 08/029,028
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). We agree with appellant that the
reasoning of the obviousness rejection in the final Office action took into account knowledge gleaned
only from applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, one would have to look to applicant’s disclosure for
direction to sense and compare an electromotive motor force and a power supply voltage for use in
adjusting the slip frequency to prevent clipping.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in the claims and the
references are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall reverse the standing rejection of claims 1 to 7 on
appeal.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007