Appeal 2006-3366
Application 10/864,041
layers to be flawed. We find the admitted inconsistency in the claim
language and the proffered evidence show a lack of persuasiveness in
Appellant’s argument. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive,
and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 due to a lack of a
persuasive argument.
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 18, Appellant continues to
extol the benefits of the disclosed invention and loosely addresses the
language of dependent claims 14 and 18. We find that the Examiner
addresses the limitation of dependent claim 18 with respect to rotor and
stator locations and find no persuasive argument thereto in the Brief or
Reply Brief. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we
will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 18 due to a lack of a persuasive
argument, and we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 14 which
Appellant has elected to group therewith.
With respect to independent claim 19, Appellant argues that the
Examiner does not address the “power electronics means”5 in the rejection
(Br. 48-49). The Examiner maintains that the power electronics are not
specifically defined in the Specification and specifically claimed. We agree
with the Examiner that it is unclear as to the express limitation which is
required in independent claim 19 and what to evaluate against the prior art.
5 We note that we find no specific “power electronics” disclosed in
Appellant’s specification which correspond to the recited “power electronics
means,” and Appellant has not identified any such structure, acts or
materials as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v) (See also Specification
28, ll. 12-30).
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013