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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007