Appeal No. 2000-0105
Application No. 08/573,247
second paragraph, will therefore be sustained as to claim 25,
but not as to claims 23 and 24.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
We begin our discussion of this rejection by noting, as
do appellants, that although claims 23 to 25 all call for “an
impact screwdriver having a variable speed electric drive
motor,” the tools disclosed by Anders and Maruyama both have
motors driven by compressed air. The examiner, however, takes
the position that:
The examiner agrees with appellant’s [sic] remarks
that the [motors disclosed by the] references are
not electric-drive motors. However, Maruyama et al.
clearly teach forming the spindle of the motor from
a material having a magnetic strictive effect. This
magnetic spindle has the effect of an [sic] dynamo-
electric machine when driven in the presence of the
coils opposed to the spindle. The spindle/coil
combination of Maruyama et al. therefore exhibits
the characteristics of an electric motor when in
operation. Since the motor of Maruyama et al.
clearly operates in a similar manner as appellant’s
[sic] and since the variables used by [sic]
appellant are the same variables used by Maruyama et
al. (e.g. motor speed, motor generate[d] current and
motor generated voltage), then whether the motor is
electric powered or pressure-air operated is clearly
a matter of design choice, wherein no stated problem
is solved by using an electric motor versus the air-
powered motor that exhibits electrical
characteristics as taught by Maruyama. There is
ample motivation to combine references in that
Maruyama seeks to control torque in a more efficient
manner.
We do not consider the examiner’s arguments to be well
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007