Appeal No. 1998-1078 Page 9
Application No. 08/442,532
obvious under 35 USC 103, we must first delineate the
invention as a whole. In delineating the invention as a
whole, we look not only to the subject matter which is
literally recited in the claim in question ... but also to
those properties of the subject matter which are inherent in
the subject matter and are disclosed in the specification."
Id. at 619, 195 USPQ at 8 (citing In re Davies, 475 F.2d 667,
177 USPQ 381 (CCPA 1973)).
Here, the invention as a whole is "a rotation detecting
device for a brushless motor in which the reaction delay of
the motor can be prevented from occurring," (Spec. at 4), and
its disclosed property. The property is that the reaction
delay of the motor can be prevented by adjusting a
relationship between torque ripple of the motor and a trigger
point of an output signal from an FG pattern of the motor.
(Id. at 4-5.)
Accordingly, the controlling question is whether the
differences between the prior art and the appellants’
invention as a whole, viz., the relationship between the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007