Appeal 2007-0939
Application 10/931,274
STATEMENT OF LAW (§ 103)
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Motivation
Appellants argue that the Examiner has impermissibly relied upon
hindsight in formulating the rejections under § 103 (Br. 6).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that it would have
obvious to an artisan to modify Kojima’s synchronous motor control system
with Anghel’s Park and Clarke transformations in order to realize a time-
invariant system that facilitates direct torque control (Answer 5).
We do not agree with Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner has
impermissibly used hindsight in formulating the rejection. We note that
Kojima and Anghel are each broadly directed to the control of synchronous
motors. Therefore, we find the cited references are analogous by virtue of
being from the same field of endeavor as the instant invention. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The
analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in
the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem
with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a
basis for rejection.”) (internal citation omitted).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013