Appeal No. 2005-2042 Page 9
Application No. 09/946,298
The examiner finds the following motivation to combine teachings of Post and
Lund.
Lund discloses that is highly desirable to have interleaved windings with
conductive loops in order to ensure a complete flux path (column 7,
line 1-5, 37 - 43). Such complete flux path induces a null net voltage and
(column 7, lines 16 - 19) an improved and easy to manufacture electrical
device can be made (column 1, lines 42 - 45; column 2, lines 24, 25).
(Examiner's Answer at 9.) The appellant argues, "Since there is no reference that
supplies a teaching of the combination of elements set out in Appellant's claim 11, the
proposed combination of the Primary Post reference (US 6,111,332), the Secondary
Lund reference (US 3,176,206), and the Tertiary Bichler reference (US 5,155,402)
would not be obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)." (Appeal Br. at 14.)
"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F3d 1305,
1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For each rejection under § 103, the
appellant's argument shall also include "an explanation of why features disclosed in one
reference may not properly be combined with features disclosed in another reference."
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iv).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007