Appeal No. 1999-2388
Application 08/758,513
the separate patentability of the claims, all contested claims
stand or fall together. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,
231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we
will consider the rejection against claim 1 as representative
of all of claims 1-4 and 7-9.
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner finds that Paulsen discloses the claimed
invention except for the rotor being external to the stator.
The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to form the device of Paulsen with the rotor external
to the stator because such arrangements were well known in
this art [final rejection, page 3, incorporated into answer].
Appellant argues that the combination of features
necessary to achieve the principles of the disclosed invention
are not present in the applied prior art. Appellant argues
that the stator windings in Paulsen are not required to be
orthogonal as claimed. Appellant also argues that Paulsen
does not contain a rotor. In summary, appellant argues that
Paulsen does not provide (i) an array of permanent magnets
that provide a uniform dipole field; (ii) a stator inserted
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007