Appeal No. 1999-2284
Application 08/798,443
the part of the enclosure case 10 shown would contain the spindle
motor within the hub 6 in entirety instead of in part as claimed.
Because we find that Vettel does not teach or disclose this
claim limitation, Vettel does not anticipate Appellants' claim 5.
In summary, Vettel does not read on, and therefore does not
anticipate Appellants' independent claims 1, 5, or 14. Appellants'
rejected dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 13 are also not
anticipated by Vettel. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vettel.
We now consider appealed claims 4, 8, and 10-12, rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vettel. In rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir. 1984). The Examiner
can satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598. Only if this initial burden is met
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007