Appeal No. 1998-3072 Page 6
Application No. 08/769,610
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5,
7-14, 23-25, 33, 34, 75, and 76. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the appellants'
argument and the examiner's reply.
The appellants argue, "none of the cited references--
singly or in combination--teach or suggest determining periods
of lower rotational torque, reduced magnetic coupling, or
reduced operating efficiency." (Reply Br. at 2.) The
examiner replies, "figures 3a-3c, l0a-l0i of Ohi and figure 5,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007