Appeal No. 1997-2508
Application 08/329,463
reply briefs does not persuade us as to the patentability of
the claims on appeal. For the reasons articulated above, and
notwithstanding appellant’s view to the contrary (main brief,
pages 3 and 4) to the effect that the claimed subject matter
requires only circumferentially-spaced magnets, we have 5
concluded that the apparatus broadly recited in each of claims
4 through 6 would have been fairly suggested by the evidence
of obviousness before us.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 4 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
5In other words, the content of the claims on appeal
clearly does not require a frame to be devoid of axially-
spaced magnets spaced in a direction parallel to the axis of a
pipe, as required for an assembly (frame and pair of magnets)
in the particular combination set forth in allowed claim 11.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007