Appeal No. 1997-1332
Application 08/217,079
Similarly, the teaching value of Kashiwabuchi and Onishi,
both of which indicate various manners in which ferrite magnets
may be retained within a small motor housing, also do not
persuade us of the obviousness of the requirements of each
independent claim that the two bodies of magnetic material be
both resiliently retained within each claimed case member but
also do so in such a manner that the magnetic bodies are allowed
to move freely relative to their respective case members at the
same time as not being inadvertently removed when the case
members are separated from one another as required by the claims
on appeal. These features would be highly undersirable in small
DC motors. Neither Wahl nor Mears bear on the noted features
because they appear to be relied upon and contain teachings only
relative to the location and the shape of the claimed teeth
members.
In view of the foregoing, we have reversed the examiner's
basic rejection of each independent claim 26, 40, and 43 on
appeal and some of the dependent claims therefrom. As such, we
also must reverse the rejection of the remaining dependent claims
utilizing the additional references to Iritani and Hamisch as
well.
Although we reverse the three stated rejections of all the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the decision of the
examiner is affirmed because we have sustained both obviousness-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007