Appeal No. 2002-0355 Page 6
Application No. 09/291,330
modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either2
reference which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to place the electrode
structures in the modified Wolfram arrangement on the sides of the rotor and stator which
face away from one another, other than the hindsight afforded one who first viewed the
appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection under Section
103. 3
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of the applied references
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited
in claim 1. We thus will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 2-9,
which depend from claim 1.
SUMMARY
2See, for example, In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007