Appeal No. 2000-1240
Application 09/094,067
20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Similarly, In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
1995), confirms the longstanding interpretation that the
teachings of a reference may be taken in combination with
knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession
of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the
patent does not specifically disclose certain features.
The integral nature of the rotor 9 in Obara with the other
described parts in the figures offers significant advantages as
best set forth in the abstract and the discussion at columns 6
and 7 of this reference. The manner in which this is achieved is
discussed at lines 15-18 at column 7 where it indicates that an
integral rotor assembly is formed by "a moulding process."
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4,
5, 7, 9 and 11 as being anticipated by Obara under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is sustained.
We also sustain the rejection of respective dependent claims
6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in view of the
collective teachings and showings of Obara and Stinesen.
Appellant's arguments as to this issue begin at the bottom of
page 9 and extend to page 12. However, the examiner notes at
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007