Appeal No. 2003-0025
Application No. 09/019,871
Appellants argue that the combination of prior art references does not teach or
suggest the claimed invention and the examiner is misapplying the references and
applying hindsight to reconstruct applicants’ invention. (See brief at page 4.)
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires that the biasing member exerts a substantially
constant force directly on the brush surface in the direction of the longitudinal axis of
the brush. Appellants argue that Sugai teaches that the spring force applied on the
compound angled surface is to prevent wild behavior of the brush to prohibit shutter or
noise of the brush. (See brief at page 4.) Appellants argue that the examiner relies
upon the teachings of Poet to teach the use of a constant force on the brush and that
this constant force would minimize the wear on the brush. (See brief at page 4.)
Appellants argue that the two references are directed to different problems and that the
examiner has merely extracted the one element from Poet concerning constant force
and applied it using hindsight in combination with Sugai. (See brief at page 5.) We do
not find appellants’ arguments to be persuasive since we find that optimizing the
operational life of electrical motor brushes would have been desirable in all electrical
motors even those that also try to reduce brush noise or sound.
At the oral hearing appellants’ representative embellished upon the above
arguments and emphasized that Sugai teaches that the forces (f1 and f2) are applied in
both the direction of the commutator and in the direction of the side of the holder to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007