Appeal No. 2006-0554
Application 10/065,541
applying the respective solutions to known cogging problems after
the engine is started is misplaced. Even the dictionary defini-
tion noted earlier appears to state to the artisan that it is
known that cogging problems exist as long as there is a relative
rotational movement between rotor poles and stator poles in an
electric motor.
In assessing appellants’ arguments as to all
rejections, we note two major themes. The first is that because
the purpose of the claimed device is different than the purpose
apparent to appellants of the applied prior art, patentability
obtains. The second is that the use of a device has patentable
significance over the applied prior art. We note here as well
that appellants have presented no arguments before us against the
examiner’s position of inherency.
To the extent appellants argue that the purposes of the
references relied upon by the examiner are different from the
appellant’s disclosed purpose, this is not pertinent to the issue
and is essentially irrelevant if the prior art teachings would
have led the artisan to construct an arrangement having the
claimed structural features. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ
1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007