Appeal No. 2003-1407
Application No. 09/733,667
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hartzell and Ito, as applied to claims 9, 10, 12,
13 and 16, further combined with Binder.
Appellants argue that “claims 14 and 15 are allowable for the reasons
advanced above with regard to claim 9 as amended, and for the additional reason that
the added subject matter thereof is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of
record.” (Brief, p. 7).
The Examiner has presented factual determinations regarding the suitability of
using an adhesive in a commutator. These determinations seem reasonable.
Since Appellants have failed to specifically challenge the factual
determinations, we presume that they are in agreement with the Examiner. Thus, for
the reasons presented above regarding claim 9 and the reasons presented by the
Examiner we will uphold the rejection.
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, having
evaluated the prima facie case of obviousness in view of Appellants’ arguments, we
conclude that the subject matter of claims 9, 10 and 12 to 16 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the combined teachings of the
cited prior art.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007