Appeal No. 1997-3964
Application No. 08/319,658
sustain the obviousness rejection in light of Teranishi alone.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 495, 131 USPQ 263, 266-267 (CCPA
1961). After all, “a lack of novelty in the claimed subjet
matter, e.g., as evidenced by a complete disclosure of the
invention in the prior art, is the ‘ultimate or epitome of
obviousness.’” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974). The obviousness rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 5 is
likewise sustained because appellant has chosen to let these
claims stand or fall with claim 1 (Brief, page 6).
The obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6 is
reversed because the admitted prior art, Fukuyama and
Teranishi neither teach nor would have suggested detecting a
switching signal based upon a slide member that moves with the
rotation of the motor, and that has a switching device
interlocked into a cam groove on the slide member.
The obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8 and 9 is
reversed because the admitted prior art, Fukuyama and
Teranishi neither teach nor would have suggested a mode
discriminating method/apparatus that is capable of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007