Appeal No. 1998-3072 Page 9
Application No. 08/769,610
piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the
claimed invention is rendered obvious.”
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d
1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “The mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” Id. at 1266,
23 USPQ2d at 1784 (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, the examiner does not establish that Figures 3(a)-
(c), 5, or l0(a)-(i) of Ohi or Figure 6 of Plunkett shows
periods of reduced magnetic coupling, rotational torque, or
operating efficiency, let alone determining such periods and
inhibiting power to a winding during the determined periods.
He fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Uchiyama or Grouse cures the deficiency of Ohi and Plunkett.
Because neither Ohi nor Plunkett teaches determining
periods of reduced magnetic coupling, rotational torque, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007