Appeal No. 2003-0025
Application No. 09/019,871
references solve different problems, we do not find that this means that the examiner
relied upon impermissible hindsight. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the longitudinal axis is the lengthwise axis on the brush
and not the widthwise or lateral axis which the force (f1) is applied upon. (See reply
brief at page 2.) We disagree with appellants and find that Fig. 1(c) of Sugai clearly
teaches that the force (f1) acts along the axis towards the commutator 23. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive. Appellants again emphasize the individual teachings
of the two references and conclude that there is no motivation to combine these
teachings. (See reply brief at page 2.) We disagree with appellants as discussed
above. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 5-8 and 20 which appellants elected to group therewith.
With respect to independent claim 9, the examiner additionally relies upon the
teachings of Sekyra to teach the use of a unitary stop in the brush. (See answer at
pages 5-7.) Appellants argue that claim 9 requires that the spring moves on the angled
surface as the brush wears and there is a unitary stop. (See brief at page 6.)
Additionally, appellants argue that the examiner’s rejection is based upon hindsight
since the examiner has not provided a logical nexus as to the combination of the three
references. (See brief at page 6.) The examiner essentially repeats the motivation for
the combination as discussed with respect to independent claim 1. As discussed
above, we found a convincing motivation to combine the teachings of Sugai and Poet.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007