Appeal No. 1999-0893
Application No. 08/683,236
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In response to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 1, Appellant asserts the failure of the Examiner to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since proper
motivation for the proposed combination of references has not
been established. In particular, Appellant contends (Brief,
pages 7-8; Reply brief, pages 2-4) that neither of the
Albrecht and Nihei references has any teaching or suggestion
to provide a barrel rotor having a plurality of rotor teeth of
the same shape and pitch provided on the inner and outer
circumference of the rotor as claimed.
After careful review of the applied Albrecht and Nihei
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs.
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007