Appeal No. 2003-0025
Application No. 09/019,871
at columns 1 and 2 and in Fig. 2. We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of Poet regarding the
use of a constant or substantially constant force in the longitudinal direction to optimize
the life of an electric motor brush.1 Here, we find that the examiner has addressed the
limitations of independent claim 1, identified the deficiencies in the prior art and
provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Poet with Sugai. Therefore, we find
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness and the burden
shifts to appellants.
The examiner maintains that the motivation to apply the constant force in Poet is
that Poet teaches exerting a substantially constant force (Fig. 3) directly on the brush
for the purpose of increasing the brush life. (See answer at pages 4, 6, and 9.) The
examiner relies on Figures 1 and 3 of Poet to teach this substantially constant force, but
neither of these figures provides any clear teaching or suggestion of increasing the life
of the brush. We do find that Figure 2 teaches the use of an optimal pressure P0 which
reduces the rate of total (mechanical and electrical) brush wear and col. 2 teaches that
“maintaining of a constant optimal pressure between the brush and the commutator of
an electric motor, resulting in longer life for the brush of the electric motor.”
1 We note that claim 1 does not recite any specific details or specifications of the motor or its
specific field of use.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007