Ex parte BARONOSKY et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-3194                                                          
          Application 08/020,232                                                      


               a coil of foil wire disposed about each of said stator                 
          poles, said coils adapted to be connected to a control circuit              
          for selectively passing electrical current therethrough so as to            
          cause each of said coils to generate an electromagnetic field,              
          said electromagnetic fields selectively attracting said rotor               
          poles toward said stator poles so as to cause said rotor to                 
          rotate relative to said stator.                                             
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Finegold                      4,446,393          May  01, 1984              
          Obradovic                     4,777,419          Oct. 11, 1988              
          Newberg                       4,972,113          Nov. 20, 1990              
          Shirakawa                     4,982,125          Jan. 01, 1991              
          Konecny                       5,015,939          May  14, 1991              
          Gaser et al. (Gaser)          5,041,749          Aug. 20, 1991              
          (filed Apr. 19, 1990)                                                       
          Sakurai et al. (Sakurai)      64-43044           Feb. 15, 1989              
          (Japanese Patent Application)                                               
          The admitted prior art in the application.                                  
                                                                                     
          Claims 1 and 3-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                     
          The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-15 is based on the                    
          teachings of Finegold in view of Obradovic, Konecny or the                  
          admitted prior art.  The rejection of claims 5 and 6 is based on            
          any of the above combinations and further in view of Newberg.               
          The rejection of claims 16 and 17 is based on any of the                    
          combinations applied against claim 1 and further in view of the             
          teachings of Shirakawa, Gaser or Sakurai.                                   
          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007