Appeal 2007-0904
Application 11/025,331
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding
of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). That is, “there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d at 1396. Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant. Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472,
223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner 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
Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires a power module,
comprised within the housing of an inverter, having two separate and
independently drivable power stages for driving a plurality of electric
motors. As detailed in the findings of fact section above, we have found that
Katagiri discloses an inverter unit that includes a circuitry for separately
powering motors M1 and M2. (Finding of Fact 5). We find that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013