Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
“end plate,” this flattened portion also, at least in part, secures the magnets 3
in axial position as claimed. And, as noted above, the curled component 21a
of the structure 21 reasonably constitutes a “securing ring.”
Since Kojima discloses all recited limitations of claim 2, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Moreover, since Appellant has
not separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 3 and 6, they fall
with dependent claim 2.
Claim 4
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 4. In our view, the flattened portion does not have an L-shaped
configuration with axial and radial legs wherein the bandage edge is wound
over the axial leg, as claimed. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the
inner portion of the curled portion 21a could somehow be considered an
“axial leg” of the “end plate” (thus forming a generally L-shaped structure),
we still fail to see how bandage edge is wound over this axial leg. At best,
the bandage edge merely abuts this structure. Since Kojima does not
reasonably disclose all limitations of dependent claim 4, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
II. The Obviousness Rejection
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 8, 10, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima and Zigler. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner
to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013