Appeal No. 1998-1797
Application No. 08/609,943
angle range since the value is between 0 and 120 degrees (N=3
in the Kordik disclosure). We, again, agree with the examiner
on this point.
The examiner recognized that neither Petersen nor Kordik
discloses the claimed relationship of the spatial angle to n,
the number of revolutions, and KM, the mechanical time
constant of the motor. However, the examiner finds that this
relationship would have been obvious in each, alternative,
rejection under
35 U.S.C. 103 because it is merely “a matter of expressing a
well-known knowledge [sic] in terms of mathematic [sic]”
[answer-page 4].
In response to appellants’ argument that the prior art
did not teach or suggest the claimed relationship between the
spatial angle and the number of revolutions and mechanical
time constant of the motor, the examiner contended that the
mechanical time constant and the number of revolutions relate
to parameters of a motor speed operation and not to structural
limitations.
It is our view that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness since the applied prior art
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007