Appeal 2006-2016
Application 10/347,345
The rotational speed of the drum is recognized by Krebs as being a control
variable (col. 5, ll. 60-63; col. 7, ll. 58-62). From such disclosure, we
determine rotational speed is a result effective variable such that it would
have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or
even optimum ranges for such art-recognized, result-effective parameters.
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-1937 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA
1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Similar reasoning may be applied to claims 6-8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 27-
29, 36, 37, 40, and 41.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner § 103(a) rejection over
Krebs of argued claims 2, 6-8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 27-29, 36, 37, 40, and 41.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER KREBS IN VIEW OF TREMOLADA
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 25 are directed to
whether Krebs in view of Tremolada anticipate, rather than render obvious,
the claimed invention. For example, Appellant argues regarding claim 4 that
“. . . KREBS fails to positively disclose. .” the coil feature recited in claim 4.
Based on that argument, Appellant determines that “the Examiner has failed
to provide an adequate evidentiary basis to support a rejection of
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)” (emphasis added) (Br. 31-32).
Appellant makes the same arguments regarding claim 25.
However, such arguments fail to address the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion. In fact, Appellant fails to shown any error on the part of the
Examiner in concluding that the claimed invention would have been obvious
over Krebs in view of Tremolada.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013