Appeal No. 1997-3253
Application 08/357,196
point. At the time of release of the motor, circuitry is used
to switch to motor winding 2, which is then supplied under
normal conditions, because thermistor 18 has not been heated.
Therefore, the motor is able to have a rapid restart. Thus,
the thermistors 17 and 18 are not placed in the vicinity of
the electric motor because both thermistors would have been
heated, thereby preventing a rapid restart.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to show
any evidence of a teaching or suggestion of placing the
thermistors in the vicinity of the electric motor so that the
electric motor heats them up to cause them to cut off the
current to the electric motor.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence
when the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching
in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 233 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148
USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007