Appeal No. 1999-1927
Application No. 08/499,367
pages 4-6].
Appellant’s main brief failed to respond to this rejection. Appellant did file a reply
brief in response to this rejection, and the examiner has entered the reply brief. The reply
brief argues that none of the applied references suggests clamping the magnetic pole
pieces between two C-shaped core parts as claimed. Appellant also argues that the
motivations asserted by the examiner for combining the references are nowhere supported
by the applied references. Appellant argues that the modification of Linder proposed by
the examiner would not achieve any benefit suggested by Perkins or Kawada. The
examiner has not responded to the arguments of the reply brief.
We again agree with the position argued by appellant. We do not find any
suggestion within the applied prior art which would have led the artisan to modify Linder so
as to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner’s motivations to combine seem to
require mere speculation in an attempt to reconstruct the invention in hindsight.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007