Appeal No. 2001-0212 Page 5
Application No. 08/958,497
fluid in an enclosure and that it would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the shaft/impeller assembly of
Murray to have a magnetic rotor and magnetic impeller in view
of Bender "in order to create a drive assembly which would not
be prone to leakage between the upper housing and the lower
housing."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 13-19; reply brief, pp.
4-5) that there is no motivation or suggestion in the applied
prior art to arrive at the claimed subject matter. We agree.
We have reviewed the teachings of Bender and Murray and
fail to find any motivation or suggestion to have modified
Murray in the manner set forth in the rejection before us in
this appeal. Murray does not teach or suggest that his drive
assembly is prone to leakage between the upper housing and the
lower housing. Bender does not teach or suggest that his
magnetic drive assembly was designed to prevent leakage.
Thus, it is our view that the only suggestion for modifying
Murray in the manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007