Appeal No. 2001-1309
Application No. 08/964,780
motor would operate at a specific speed, based on point P, then decrease in speed,
based on point P5, and, finally, remain at a constant speed at point P2. However, we
do not view Suriano as depicting such a speed behavior, appellant vigorously contests
such an interpretation at pages 6-18 of the reply brief, presenting a detailed analysis as
to Suriano’s operation and, most importantly, the examiner fails to provide any cogent
reasoning as to why Figure 16C may be interpreted in the manner alleged by the
examiner.
In view of Suriano’s failure to suggest the claimed motor speed sequence, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 6, 7 and 13, the examiner adds “common knowledge in the
art” to Suriano in rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner alleges
that Suriano teaches every aspect of the claimed invention except for “the brush
remaining at a constant speed for the first 100 hours of operation, steadily decreasing
over 100 hours and remaining at a constant speed after 200 hours of operation”
[answer-page 4]. We would hasten to point out that it is the “motor speed,” and not the
“brush,” which is claimed as exhibiting this speed behavior.
In any event, the examiner states that although Suriano does not specify wear
time for the brush, it would have been obvious “to provide 100 hours at the initial portion
of the brush wear with 100 hours of steadily decreasing speed because Suriano
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007