Appeal No. 2006-2752
Application No. 10/309,007
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to claims 2 through 4, Appellants argue in the
Appeal Brief that Buening does not teach the claimed invention.
Particularly, Appellants assert that Buening does not teach 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. We have already addressed
this argument in the discussion of claim 1 above, and we disagree
with Appellants. Further, Appellants argues that Ishida does not
cure the deficiencies of Buening. We find no such deficiencies
in Buening for Ishida to cure.
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 claims 2 through 4.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007