Appeal No. 2006-0859
Application No. 09/778,338
With respect to dependent claim 7, Appellants argue at page 7 of the brief,
“[Miyao] does not show the use of magnets of the same circumferential extent nor does
it disclose the arrangement where there is a nonmagnetic spacing between adjacent
magnet poles.” We do not find this exact language in claim 7, however we find the
following language in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends: “permanent magnets … at
equally spaced intervals.” We deem Appellants’ argument to be directed to this
language. Since intervals is plural in claim 1, we interpret this language as requiring
that each of the spacing of the magnets be equal from magnet to magnet around the
entire circumference. We do not find this in the Miyao reference.
However, De Filippis (U.S. Patent 5,233,250) describes improving efficiency by
using permanent magnets (corresponding to the claimed magnetic poles) having exactly
the claimed magnetic angle of claim 7 in a motor with permanent magnets at equally
spaced intervals (column 1, lines 9-13). The De Filippis reference throughout
describes 2/3 of a pole pitch (a pole pitch equals the X mechanical degrees of finding 16
above) which equals 120 electrical degrees and above (up to ½ of the angular extent of
the stator recess opening) as the optimum permanent magnet angular extent. We note
that De Filippis’ unmagnetized portion is a gap rather than an unmagnetized portion of
the magnet. However, claim 7 is silent as to this distinction, and even if claimed
artisans would have known that both are equivalent.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007