Appeal No. 2005-2042 Page 10
Application No. 09/946,298
Here, the examiner has found, supra, specific reasons for combining teachings of
Post and Lund. For his part, the appellant has not addressed the specific findings of the
examiner, let alone showed error therein. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by the
appellant's reasoning that the failure of any one of the references to teach all the
limitations in the claim evidences that combining teachings of the references "would not
be obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)." (Appeal Br. at 14.) Therefore,
we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 11.
B. CLAIM 12
The examiner finds, "Heshma[t] et al discloses that the windings 54a, 54c are
used for inducing a radially movement force on the rotor 22 (column 7, lines 5 - 12).
Thus there is an induced force acting on the parallel sections." (Examiner's Answer at
10.) The appellant argues, "the Primary Post reference, the Secondary Lund reference,
the Tertiary Bichler reference, and the Quaternary Heshma[t] et al reference all fail to
show the structural elements of Appellant's claim 12. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 15.)
1. Claim Construction
"The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when
determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579,
1582, 32 USPQ2d 1021, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007