Appeal No. 1997-0287
Application 08/263,034
Appellants' arguments that Andres teaches away and must be
avoided as a reference are not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the two Swearingen patents provide
no teaching or suggestion of magnetic bearings (Br11).
However, Andres is relied on for its teaching of active
magnetic thrust bearings and a compressor in association with
other turbo-machinery. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking the references individually where the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981). Similarly,
the argument that "[n]one of the references aside from Andres
et al. provide any system using magnetic bearings with a
compressor in association with other turbomachinery" (Br15) is
not persuasive because the rejection is based on a combination
of references. The argument that "[n]one of the references
provide a compressor system to supply differential pressure to
a fluid thrust balancing system for other turbomachinery where
the shaft uses magnetic thrust bearings" (Br15) are not
persuasive because it essentially argues lack of anticipation
where the rejection is based on obviousness.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007