Appeal No. 2003-0275 Page 14
Application No. 09/550,032
In the rejections before us in this appeal, the examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified either Bodie's electric motor 18 or Boberg's electric motor 32 as
taught by Fisher's electromotive device. Thus, Bodie's modified electric motor 18 and
Boberg's modified electric motor 32 would each include a magnet rotating relative to an
inductor.
The appellants argue throughout both briefs that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree. While the examiner may be correct
that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have used Fisher's electromotive device for either Bodie's
electric motor 18 or Boberg's electric motor 32, such a modification of Bodie's and
Boberg's system does not result in the claimed subject matter for the reasons that
follow.
With regard to claim 1, the above-noted modification of Bodie does not result in
a retarding system having at least one magnet mounted to the axle shaft for rotation
with the axle shaft. In the modified system of Bodie the rotating magnet would be
mounted on the motor shaft, not on the axle shaft as recited in claim 1.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007