Appeal No. 2006-0259
Application No. 09/220,462
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that although
Yoshikawa discloses drive motor 9a, Yoshikawa does not disclose
that the motor is integrated onto one of the sheaves 12. To
overcome this deficiency of Yoshikawa, the examiner turns to
Aulanko for a teaching of a flat motor integrated onto a sheave,
as shown in figure 1. The examiner asserts that the modification
would have been obvious in order to save space, to simplify the
drive system, and to avoid the failure mode of having one of the
drive belts fail.
Appellants' position (brief, page 4) is that there is no
motivation to modify the references and (id.) that:
There is no suggestion by Aulanko et al or Yoshikawa
that the drive system of Yoshikawa consisting of a
motor located on the top of the car, a first drive
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007