Appeal No. 2001-1309
Application No. 08/964,780
claims 12 and 14, the examiner relies on either Suriano or Suriano and “common
knowledge in the art” in view of Onodera.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to claims 5 and 11, it is the examiner’s position that Suriano
discloses the claimed subject matter but for the brush having a constant initial speed
followed by a decrease in speed and a constant speed following the decrease in speed.
The examiner points to Figure 16C of Suriano and contends that this figure
suggests that the motor would operate at a specific speed (based on the contact point
P), then decrease in speed (based on point P5). The examiner further alleges that this
figure suggests that the speed will remain constant after the point P2 has reached the
right most point on the commutator. Thus, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to construct the motor of Suriano having an initial speed, followed by a
speed decrease and a final remaining constant speed “because Suriano suggests that
the speed of the motor is controlled by the centroid of the brush and commutator in a
DC motor and because Figure 16C suggests that the speed can be controlled for a
constant speed, a decreasing speed, and a constant speed.”
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 11 since, in our view, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007