Appeal No. 2005-0375
Application No. 09/826,422
be modified according to the teachings of Acquaviva to eliminate or
otherwise minimize any problems associated with it.
In a nutshell, we find insufficient evidence according to the
combination of Heidelberg and Acquaviva that would lead us to conclude
that the artisan would have found obvious the subject matter of
independent claim 1 on appeal based upon the combined teachings and
showings of Heidelberg in view of Acquaviva. We remain unconvinced that
the artisan would have done anything to modify Heidelberg’s structure of
his motor according to the teachings of Acquaviva according to the
examiner’s rationale. On the other hand, it does appear that the structure
of Heidelberg could have been rendered obvious or could have been
modified according to Acquaviva’s teachings, but we cannot independently
conclude that the artisan would have found it obvious in light of Heidelberg
and Acquaviva to have done so within 35 U.S.C. § 103. To us the
examiner’s position of the combinability of Heidelberg and Acquaviva is
speculative at best, is based on hindsight at its worst, and plainly at a
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007