Appeal No. 2006-2752
Application No. 10/309,007
full wave rectifier can be arranged either in a star or annular
configuration. Consequently, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s stated position, which concludes that Buening teaches
the limitation of an armature winding being constructed by
connecting five winding phase portions into an annular shape to
be rectified by a five-phase full wave rectifier. It is
therefore our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled
artisan the invention as set forth in claim 1. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 2 through
4 as being unpatentable over combinations of Buening and Ishida
Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007