Appeal No. 1999-0272 Page 11
Application No. 08/605,212
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 7 and 17 fall
with claim 16. Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
also affirmed.
Claims 8, 18, 22, 24 and 25
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 18, 22, 24
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claims 8, 18 and 24, we agree with the
appellants' argument (brief, pp. 8-9; reply brief, p. 5) that
two electric servodrives as recited in these claims are not
suggested or taught by the applied prior art. In that regard,
while an artisan may have found it obvious to have replaced
either Ward's motor or Gurevich's motor with an electric
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007