Appeal No. 1998-1797 Application No. 08/609,943 fails to teach or suggest that the mechanical time constant, KM, is in any way related to the variables recited in claim 1. Appellants choose the relationship between the spatial angle and the mechanical time constant and the number of revolutions of the motor in order to produce what appellants consider to be superior, or advantageous, results regarding minimization of a variation of Hall voltage output of each position detector due to magnetic imbalances. Without a particular teaching, or at least some clear suggestion of this claimed relationship, the examiner’s finding of obviousness would appear to be based on a hindsight reconstruction of appellants’ invention. The examiner has not shown anything in the applied prior art which would indicate a desire to relate the spatial angle to the mechanical time constant of the motor and so we fail to see how the examiner can be considered to have established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter. The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed. REVERSED 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007