Appeal No. 2005-0648
Application No. 09/824,980
segmented stators have been known in the prior art since the mid
1800's and that permanent magnet motors with segmented stators of
the type taught by Nishiyama have been known in the prior art
since the early 1950's. The appellants further contend that
nonobviousness is evinced by the age of this prior art coupled
with the failure to solve the problem of more cost effective
power steering systems of the type here claimed (e.g., see the
paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the reply brief).
This argument by the appellants is unpersuasive.
Significantly, the appellants have advanced no technical reason
(and we independently perceive none) which would have discouraged
an artisan from providing Kliman with a segmented stator in order
to obtain the advantages (easily formed winding) taught by
Nishiyama. As for the appellants’ contentions regarding the age
of switched reluctance motors with non-segmented stators versus
synchronous motors having segmented stators of the type taught by
Nishiyama, we reiterate the examiner’s well taken point that
prior art age is not particularly relevant to the issue of
obviousness versus nonobviousness in the absence of evidence that
artisans have tried and failed to solve some problem not
withstanding their presumed knowledge of this prior art. See In
re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007