Appeal No. 1997-0397 Application 07/863,900 controlled by selection of one capacitor instead of redesigning the motor hardware for different power outputs (Br13-14; RBr2). The advantages are attributable to the statement in the "whereby" clause, which we interpret as not patentably distinguishing over the combination. Moreover, we also find that Gerfast suggests that the power output of a fixed motor hardware can be preselectively determined by selection of the appropriate capacitor value, which provides the same advantages. Thus, this argument is not persuasive. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness, which Appellants have not shown to be erroneous. The rejection of claim 66 is sustained. - 12 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007