Appeal 2006-3366
Application 10/864,041
exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As to the
specific question of "teaching away," our reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994) stated:
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
Here, we find that Appellant has not established in the record that the
skilled artisan woul be led in a divergent direction or from following the
path disclosed by Hendershot. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
Additionally, we find no extrinsic evidence supplied by Appellant
which controverts the express teachings of the prior art applied by the
Examiner. From our review of the rejection and the prior art teachings
presented by the Examiner, we find that the Examiner has set forth a proper
initial showing of the obviousness of independent claim 1 with Fan teaching
the transverse flux design, DeCristofaro teaching the desirability of the use
of amorphous nanocrystaline material in an electric motor, and Hendershot
teaching the use of motors having the range of SPP ratio claimed and the
considerations in designing such motors at page 3-1. We additionally find
that the Examiner has set forth a statement of motivation for the combination
of the teachings at page 5 of the Answer which Appellant has not shown
error therein.
Appellant controverts the Examiner’s reliance upon the teachings of
Hendershot in the rejection and asserts that Hendershot is insufficient to
suggest to one skilled in the art Appellant’s broad range of ratios of 0.25-4.0
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013