Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
to be obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to have applied Burgbacher's
teaching to the combination of Welch and Jacobsen.
Appellant argues that the limitation of claim 3 determines the speed of
rotation of one of the output shafts not the difference in diameter as in the abstract
teaching of Welch [brief-page 9]. The arguments are based on
increasing differences in the number of poles versus changing diameters. It is not
clear what specific claim limitations appellant is relying on in making this
argument and it appears that, once again, appellant argues limitations not
appearing in the claims.
Appellant also argues that Burgbacher teaches that the additional pole is for
reducing torque fluctuations rather than for developing rotation as does appellant's
device. If a reference suggests the limitation set forth in appellant's claim, it does
not matter that the reference makes the suggestion for a reason different from that
of appellant. If the suggestion for the modification is clear in the prior art, and we
find no argument by appellant that Burgbacher does not suggest the limitation in
question, then the reason as to why the prior art suggests the modification appears
to be irrelevant.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 3, and of claim 4, which falls
with claim 3, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007