Appeal 2006-3366
Application 10/864,041
respect to independent claim 1 and that Hendershot fails to recognize any
possible use of the Tsuya material or the implications of the low core losses
of such material (Br. 52). As discussed above, we found no deficiency in the
Examiner’s base combination as to independent claim 1 and no persuasive
arguments by Appellant. Similarly, we do not find Appellant’s reliance on
the base argument as to independent claim 1 to be persuasive here.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 10.
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 16, Appellant’s main
contention is that the teachings of Caamano do not remedy the deficiencies
noted above with respect to independent claim 1 and that Caamano does not
operate at peak torque output at the 1-1500 kHz frequency, but does not
provide any persuasive argument as to why it would not (Br. 54 and Reply
Br. 33-34). As discussed above, we found no deficiency in the Examiner’s
base combination as to independent claim 1 and no persuasive arguments by
Appellant why it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
relevant art at the time of the invention to have made a motor as disclosed by
Caamano to operate with a commuting frequency in the disclosed range
which corresponds with three quarters of the claimed range. Additionally,
we note that Caamano teaches the use of high pole counts greater than 32
(Caamano, col. 11, ll. 26-67). Similarly, we do not find Appellant’s reliance
on the base arguments as to independent claim 1 to be persuasive here.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 15 and dependent claim 16 grouped therewith
by Appellant.
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013