Appeal No. 1997-4050
Application 08/535,317
have not argued there is no motivation to combine the caging
teaching of Hulsing with the teachings of Henrion, and we agree
with the examiner that one would have been motivated to combine
the caging teaching of Hulsing with Henrion “to reduce the
possibility of transducer damage during inactive states”, as
during transportation of Henrion’s transducer. Appellants’
argument that Hulsing is devoid of a second control means to apply
a second force field for the purpose of caging, etc. is
unpersuasive because Henrion discloses the first control means of
the claims and Hulsing discloses a second control means 52, 57
which produces a magnetic force field which cages a movable
member, rotor 60. To the extent that appellants argue that
Hulsing does not disclose two control means, the argument is
unpersuasive. It is the combined teachings of the prior art that
must be considered. Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Lastly, appellants argue that the combination of Henrion and
Hulsing does not teach an electrostatic force field for caging.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007