Ex Parte Takano

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2003

09442895 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2003)

1 In response to an amendment (Paper No. 10, filed May 7, 2001)
submitted subsequent to the final rejection, the examiner (Paper No. 11,
mailed July 27, 2001) stated that the amendment would be entered for purposes
of appeal. However, the amendment has not been physically entered into the
record. We consider this to be a formalilty that can be addressed by the
examiner subsequent to the appeal.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TADASHI TAKANO
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
____________
HEARD: February 13, 2003
____________
Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-17 1, which are all
of the claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to a rotary position sensor
for a brushless DC motor (specification, page 2). An
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 2
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced as follows:
1. A rotating electrical machine having an outer housing
carrying a stator, a rotor journaled within said outer housing
for rotation about a rotor axis and cooperating with said stator,
said stator being formed by a plurality of armatures having poles
and surrounding radially extending armatures windings, a first
plurality of circumferentially spaced permanent magnets carried
on said rotor for cooperation with said armature, and a magnet
carrier fixed for rotation with said rotor for cooperation with a
detector fixed to said outer housing for controlling said
armature windings, said magnet carrier carrying a second
plurality of circumferentially spaced permanent magnets spaced
axially from said first plurality of circumferentially spaced
permanent magnets and disposed radially inwardly of a radial
inner periphery of said armature windings.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Riggs et al. (Riggs) 4,311,933 Jan. 19, 1982
Stokes 4,792,712 Dec. 20, 1988
Shirakawa 4,982,125 Jan. 1, 1991
Shiraki et al. (Shiraki) 5,225,725 Jul. 6, 1993
Knappe 5,565,721 Oct. 15, 1996
Carrier et al. (Carrier) 5,717,268 Feb. 10, 1998
Claims 6-9 and 11-14 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Knappe
and Carrier.
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Knappe, Carrier, and
Riggs.
Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Knappe, Carrier, and
Shiraki.
Claims 7-9 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shirakawa, in view of Knappe, Carrier,
Shiraki, and further in view of Riggs.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) a
unpatentable over Shirakawa in view of Knappe, Carrier, and
further in view of Stokes.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
December 4, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
13, filed October 4, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
January 10, 2002) for appellant's arguments thereagainst. Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 4
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See
37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 6-9 and 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The
examiner’s position (answer, page 3) is that the term “type” in
line 2 of claim 6 is indefinite. Appellant (reply brief, page 2)
argues to the effect that there are different types of magnets,
such as a horseshoe “type” magnet.
We find (specification, page 5) that rotor 14 comprises an
inner shaft 28. Yoke 29, which is made of stamped sheets, is
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 5
mounted on shaft 28. Arcuately shaped permanent magnets 31 are
received in slots 32 formed in the periphery of the yoke. As
illustrated in figure 5, magnets 31 appear to be formed as sheets
around the periphery of the yoke. In addition, appellant’s
specification discloses magnetic detector ring 33, which includes
an annular, ring type magnet carrier 35. From the disclosure of
magnets 31 being arcuately shaped and formed in slots 32, the
depiction of the magnets 31 being in the form of sheets around
the periphery of the yoke, and appellant’s use of the term “type”
to refer to the annular shape of the detector ring, we find that
the phrase sheet “type” in referring to the shape of magnets 31
makes clear reference to magnets 31 in a manner consistent with
the specification. Accordingly, we find claim 6, and dependent
claims 7-9 and 11-14 to be definite within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The rejection of claims 6-9 and
11-14 is therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shirakawa in view
of Knappe and Carrier.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 6
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 7
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner takes the position (answer, page 4) that
Shirakawa does not disclose “a magnet carrier fixed for rotation
with said rotor and the magnet carrier carrying a second
plurality of circumferentially spaced permanent magnets.
Shirakawa uses no magnet carrier. Shirakawa just mounts the
magnet (7) directly on the shaft (4).” In addition, the examiner
(answer, page 11) acknowledges that Shirakawa does not show first
and second pluralities of circumferentially spaced magnets. To
overcome these deficiencies in Shirakawa, the examiner turns to
Knappe for a teaching of a magnet carrier, and to Carrier for a
teaching of pluralities of circumferentially spaced magnets
having alternating N and S poles.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 4) that Knappe does show a
magnet carrier, but that the carrier only carries a single
magnet, and that Knappe and Shirakawa fail to disclose a
plurality of circumferentially spaced magnets. Appellant further
asserts (id.) that although Carrier shows a second plurality of
circumferentially spaced magnets, in Carrier, the outer housing
rotates around a fixed armature. Appellant additionally asserts
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 8
(id.) “[a]lso, it is submitted that if this teaching were
substituted, then the claim language that calls for the magnet
carrier to be disposed radially inwardly of the inner periphery
of the armature windings would not be met because the permanent
magnets and the sensing magnets are disposed radially outwardly
of the winding. Thus, even if these three references were
combined, and this combination is most respectfully traversed,
the combination would not meet the claimed language because the
second series of magnets would be disposed radially outwardly of
the armature windings.”
We find that Shirakawa (col. 1, lines 5 and 6) is directed
to a brushless motor for use in a vehicle. As shown in prior art
figure 2, the motor includes a stator core 1, a stator coil 2, a
rotor 3 having a rotor shaft 4 on which a rotor core 5 and a main
magnet 6 are coaxially fixedly mounted. A submagnet 7 is also
fixedly mounted on rotor shaft 4 (col. 1, lines 7-13). As shown
in the embodiment of figure 1, A Hall element 13 is supported by
a holder plate 14 (col. 2, line 29). From this disclosure, we
find that Shirakawa only shows individual magnets 6 and 7, and
does not disclose plural sets of magnets, as recited in claim 1.
We additionally find that Shirakawa does not disclose a magnet
carrier for a second plurality of circumferentially spaced
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 9
magnets. However, we find that, as advanced by the examiner
(answer, page 9) that second magnet 7 is axially spaced from main
magnet 6, and that submagnet 7 is disposed radially inwardly from
the radial inner periphery of the armature windings 2 because the
outermost edges of submagnet 7 (figure 1) are closer to the
center of the rotor shaft that the innermost edges of armature
windings 2.
Turning to Knappe, we find the Knappe is directed to an
electromotive drive in which the magnet body is a magnet wheel
attached to the rotor shaft and producing a speed-proportional
signal in a stator-side Hall probe (col. 1, lines 7-12). Knappe
discloses that it was known to attach the magnet wheel directly
to the rotor shaft by force fit and/or adhesive fit (col. 1,
lines 16-22). Knappe recognizes (col. 1, lines 59-65) that “the
magnet body is relatively brittle. Therefore tangentially and
axially fixing the magnet body into position on the rotor shaft
with a force fit such that the magnet body will reliably remain
on the rotor shaft even after long and rough operation tends to
crack the brittle magnet body. Fixing the magnet body into
position on the rotor shaft with adhesive is not sufficiently
reliable.” Knappe further discloses (col. 2, lines 6-14) that
“[t]hus, there exists a need to provide a relatively simple
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 10
arrangement to tangentially and axially fix a brittle magnet body
on a shaft such that the magnet body will remain on the shaft
even after long and rough operation, without exerting forces on
the magnet body which could lead to cracking, such that the axial
position of the magnet body can be adjusted.” To overcome the
disadvantages of the prior art, Knappe discloses (col. 4, lines
7-15) a magnet carrier in the form of a plastic bushing 4 which
has been placed on the rotor shaft 2, and which carries the
magnet body 3. Snap hooks 41, 42 of the plastic bushing extend
through corresponding grooves 31, 32 in the magnet body 3 and
engage the left end side of the magnet body 3 (col. 4, lines 12-
14). Thus, we find that Knappe discloses attaching a bushing to
the rotor shaft and attaching the magnet 3 to the bushing instead
of attaching the magnet 3 directly to the rotor shaft. From the
disclosure of Knappe, we find that an artisan would have been
taught to have connected magnet 7 of Shirakawa to a magnet
carrier instead of attaching magnet 7 directly to the rotor, as
taught by Knappe.
Turning to Carrier, we find that Carrier relates to (col. 1,
lines 5-8) an electric motor with a frequency generator for
producing a signal indicative of motor speed. Rotor 10 includes
an annular field magnet 28 that is rigidly attached to housing 22
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 11
by an adhesive. As illustrated in figure 1, arrangement 28
includes a number of adjacent circumferentially arranged field
magnet segments for producing alternately polarized radially
directed fields; i.e., each magnet segment is permanently
magnetized with a polarity that is opposite from adjacent field
magnet segments (col. 2, lines 36-44). Carrier further discloses
(col. 2, lines 43-47) that “[t]hese magnet segments may be
discrete elements, but are preferably formed in an integral
cylindrical body of a hard magnetic material such as ceramic, as
is well known in the art.” The motor has a speed detecting means
including an FG magnet arrangement 32, which includes N adjacent
circumferentially arranged FG magnet segments for producing
alternatively polarized axially directed fields, as illustrated
in figure 1 (col. 3, lines 6-11). In addition (col. 3, lines 11-
16) “[a]s in the case of the field magnet arrangement, the FG
magnet arrangement may be formed of discrete magnet elements, but
preferably the magnetic segments are formed in an integral body
of hard magnetic material such as ceramic. The number N
determines the maximum accuracy at which the rotor speed may be
measured.” From the disclosure of Carrier, we find that both the
field magnet and the FG magnet 32 should be made of plural
segments having alternating polarity, and that the larger the
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 12
number of FG segments, the more accurate the rotor speed may be
determined. From these disclosures of Carrier, we find that an
artisan would have been taught to make the circumferentially
disposed magnets 6 and 7 of Shirakawa as plural segments having
alternately polarized axially directed fields, i.e., each of the
segments is magnetized with a polarity that is opposite from
adjacent segments.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s assertion, (brief, page
4) to the effect that the examiner has combined an excessive
number of references, i.e., three references in an attempt to
meet a “relatively simple structure.” We agree with the examiner
(answer, page 11) that “reliance on a large number of references
in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the
obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d
982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).”
In addition, we are unpersuaded by appellant’s assertion
(brief, page 4) that Carrier relates to a rather different type
of machine, wherein the outer housing rotates about a fixed
armature. We agree with the examiner (answer, page 11 and 12)
that if combined, the spaced magnets 32 of Carrier would be
disposed radially inwardly of the inner periphery of the armature
windings, because the existing magnet 7 would be formed of a
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 13
plurality of segments that are magnetized with a polarity that is
opposite to the polarity of adjacent magnet segments. From all
of the above, we find that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 1 that has not been
successfully rebutted by appellant. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 2. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 4
and 5) that although Knappe shows a magnetic carrier, that is
made of non-magnetic material, Knappe does not show magnets
embedded in the carrier. The examiner (answer, page 12) relies
upon Knappe for a teaching of embedded magnets (figure 10)
detachably connected to the carrier. Although Knappe shows
magnet 3 embedded within magnet 3, Knappe does not disclose that
the magnet carrier 4, 7, and 8, carries a plurality of magnets 3.
However, Carrier teaches that both groups of circumferentially
located magnets are made of plural segments that have opposing
polarity. In addition, Carrier discloses (col. 2, lines 43-47)
that “[t]hese magnet segments may be discrete elements, but are
preferably formed in an integral cylindrical body of a hard
magnetic material such as ceramic, as is well known in the art. ”
From this teaching of Carrier, we find that an artisan would have
been taught to embed the magnet sections in the magnet
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 14
arrangement 28. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to claim 5. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5)
that in Shirakawa and Knappe, the detector magnet is disposed
axially outside the of the armature windings. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 12) is that this feature is shown by
Carrier (28 and 32). From our review of the prior art, we find
that in Carrier, FG magnet 32 is outside the axial extent of
armature windings 19, as clearly shown in figure 2. Accordingly,
we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of claim 5. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 10. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5)
that this feature of the embodiment of figures 8-10 is not found
in the prior art. The examiner’s position (answer, page 12) is
that the claimed projections are met by 41, 42 of Knappe. We
agree with the examiner. We find that Knappe discloses (col. 4,
lines 11-14) that the plastic bushing 4 is pushed such that
axially protruding snap hooks 41, 42 extend through corresponding
grooves 31, 32 in the magnet body and engage the left end side of
magnet body 3. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 15
We turn next to claim 15. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5)
that the two sensors of Knappe associate with a single magnet.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 12) is that Carrier shows
three sensors 30A, 30B, and 30C which cooperate with the
plurality of circumferential spaced magnets 32. We agree.
Figure 1 of Carrier shows sensors 30A, 30B, and 30C disposed at
different angular positions for detecting the radially directed
poles of magnet 28. From this teaching of Carrier, we find that
an artisan would have been motivated to use plural sensors along
with the plural magnet segments of Carrier. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner additionally
offers Riggs. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5) that Riggs does
indeed show the claimed features of the second set of magnets
being aligned with the first set of magnets, but asserts that
Riggs “does not show this construction in connection with an
arrangement wherein the rotor is fixed within a fixed outer
housing but rather shows an arrangement wherein the rotor is the
outer housing. Hence, the detector must be positioned in a
different place from that claimed.” The examiner’s position
(answer, pages 6, 7, and 12) is that although the magnets of
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 16
Riggs are in the outer type rotor, that it is well known in the
art that a rotor can be made as either the outer type or the
inner type.
We find that Riggs supports the position of the examiner,
disclosing (col. 4, lines 17 and 18) that “[a]nother possible
construction has the rotor within the stator." Because Riggs
teaches that an alternate construction would be to have the rotor
within the stator, we are not persuaded by appellant’s argument
that Riggs does not show the claimed structure in an arrangement
wherein the rotor is fixed within an outer housing.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We turn next to claims 6 and 11. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner offers Shiraki, in addition to
Shirakawa, Knappe, and Carrier. The examiner’s position is that
it would have been obvious to provide a protective coating on the
magnets as taught by Shiraki (col. 7, lines 20-40). Appellant’s
position (brief, page 5) is that Shiraki relates to a linear
motor which includes a plurality of windings, which do not
surround radially projecting armature cores. Appellant argues
that Shiraki does not disclose sheet type magnets that are
affixed to the face of a magnet carrier that faces away from the
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 17
rotor, and that even though Shiraki may disclose protective
coatings, Shiraki does not make up for the defects mentioned in
the other claims.
We find that FG magnets 32 of Carrier are sheet "type" and
are affixed to a face of magnet carrier that faces away from the
rotor. As asserted by the examiner, Shiraki discloses (col. 7,
lines 28-32) that to prevent the generation of dust or corrosion,
the surface of the magnet is coated with a protection film. From
this disclosure of Shiraki, we find that an artisan would have
been taught to have provided a protective coating on the second
set of magnets, as advanced by the examiner. The fact that
Shiraki is directed to a linear motor does not detract from the
teaching of providing the magnet with a protective coating to
prevent dust and corrosion. From all of the above, we affirm the
rejection of claim 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7-9 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
offers Riggs in addition to Shirakawa, Knappe, Carrier, and
Shiraki. The examiner relies upon Riggs for a teaching of
aligning the first and second sets of magnets. We make reference
to our findings, supra, with respect to Riggs, and affirm the
rejection of claim 7 and 12 for the same reasons as we affirmed
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 18
the rejection of claim 3, supra. With regard to claims 8 and 13,
we find that Riggs discloses second set of magnets 20, 22, 24,
and 26 to be axially disposed within the axial extent of the
armature windings 30 in the direction of the rotor axis (figure
1). From this teaching of Riggs, and the teaching in Riggs that
another possible construction has the rotor within the stator, we
find that upon putting the rotor within the stator, that the
plurality of second magnets would be within the axial extent of
the armature windings. From the disclosure of Riggs, we
therefore find that an artisan would have been motivated to make
the second set of magnets within the axial extent of the armature
windings, as taught by Riggs. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 8 and 13. In addition, we affirm the
rejection of claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Carrier disclosed a detector plate 36 having a plurality of Hall
sensors 30A, 30B, and 30C circumferentially spaced and positioned
at one side of the armature. We consider Rigg’s Hall sensors to
be surplusage.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers
Stokes in addition to Shirakawa, Knappe, and Carrier. The
examiner asserts (answer, page 9) that Stokes shows the magnet
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 19
carrier being bonded to the rotor 26 for the purpose of bonding
the two components together; (see col. 5, lines 43-45).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 6) that “[t]hese claims call for
the magnetic carrier to be adhesively bonded to the rotor and
that the magnet carrier face that carries the adhesive is that
which faces the rotor so as to also affix the magnetic carrier to
the rotor. The Stokes reference admittedly shows the adhesive
bonding of permanent magnets to a shell but not to a face of the
shell nor does it show bonding of the shell to the rotating
element. Also the adhesive is utilized to bond a shell to the
outer surface of the magnets and hence, does not form a
protective coating.” From our review of Stokes we agree with
appellant that even though Stokes discloses preventing magnets
from releasing particles or chips during rotation of the rotor,
we find no suggestion of adhesively bonding the magnet carrier of
Shirakawa to the rotor. Although Knappe teaches making the
magnet carrier adjustable to allow alignment with the Hall
sensors (col. 3, line 67 through col. 4, line 3) we find no
teaching to attach the magnetic carrier of Shirakawa to the rotor
and find that if the magnetic carrier was bonded to the rotor,
two problems would result. The first is that the Hall sensors
would be out of alignment. The second is that Carrier teaches
that the extension 28A effects axial positioning of the FG magnet
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 20
arrangement and thus the FG coil, sufficiently far from the
stator field to effect isolation (col. 3, lines 45-48).
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 16. The rejection of
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore reversed. We
reverse the rejection of claim 17 due to its dependency from
claim 16.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
6-9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, and
6-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The decision of the
examiner to reject claims 5, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 21
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136
(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SSL/kis
Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895
Page 22
ERNEST A. BEUTLER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 945
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660