Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
motor casing and concludes that it would have been obvious to
fasten the shaft of Hajec to the base with a screw (FR6).
Appellant argues that even if it were obvious in view of
Yamashita to use a screw to fasten the shaft to the base of
the Hajec motor, it is not understood how this would render
Appellant's invention obvious (Br13-14).
Appellant has not attempted to point out the error in the
rejection of claims 18 and 19. The rejection of claims 18
and 19 is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is sustained.
The rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 31, 32, 39,
40, and 42 under § 102(b) is sustained.
The rejections of claims 11, 13, 16-19, 33, 34, 42,
and 43 under § 103(a) are sustained, while the rejections of
claims 20-30, 35-38, and 41 under § 103(a) are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
- 19 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007