Appeal No. 2002-0588
Application No. 08/566,206
increased attraction force,” yet the examiner provides no analysis of why it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to desire increased attraction in view of
the teaching or the use of springs to center the plunger in Knutson. In response to
appellants’ arguments, the examiner merely states “that by removal of the springs, an
obvious modification when deemed necessary given a particular application, Knutson
would also function as a bistable actuator. The placement of the permanent magnets
for impact by the armature, as shown by Philips, is a concept readily transferable to
Knutson and Yamamoto.” (See answer at page 9.) While we MAY agree with the
examiner if a “particular application” was taught as desirable in the prior art, we find no
such teaching disclosed or suggested and the examiner has provided no convincing line
of reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention. Therefore, we are left with the examiner’s bald assertions with
no evidence to support the conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4, 6 and 9.
With respect to claims 3 and 5, the examiner adds the teachings of Matsumoto
for limited purposes and does not provide any further motivation to combine the base
teachings of Knutson and Philips. Therefore, Matsumoto does not remedy the noted
deficiencies, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 5.
With respect to claim 9, the examiner adds the teachings of Ueda for limited
purposes and does not provide any further motivation to combine the base teachings of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007