Ex parte TAKAHATA et al. - Page 3




               Appeal No. 96-2202                                                                                                      
               Application 08/117,088                                                                                                  


               specified quantity greater than zero of magnetic flux of the                                                            
               permanent magnet portion to penetrate thereinto.                                                                        
                       The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                   
               Baermann                         3,233,950         Feb.  8, 1966                                                        
               Rosensweig                       3,612,630         Oct. 12, 1971                                                        
               Meeks                            3,614,181         Oct. 19, 1971                                                        
               Wasson                           4,072,370         Feb.  7, 1978                                                        
               Agarwala                         5,126,317         June 30, 1992                                                        
               McMichael et al. (McMichael)     5,177,387         Jan.  5, 1993                                                        
               Hanami                            57-97917         June 17, 19823                                                       
               (Japanese patent application)                                                                                           
                       Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                      
               being unpatentable over Baermann or Hanami in view of McMichael.                                                        
                       Claims 8 though 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                      
               being unpatentable over Rosensweig, Meeks or Wasson in view of                                                          
               McMichael or Agarwala.                                                                                                  
                       Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the                                                           
               respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                                                                
                                                             OPINION                                                                   
                       We have carefully considered the entire record before us,                                                       
               and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through                                                       
               7, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 8                                                            
               through 10.                                                                                                             
                       The examiner is of the opinion that:                                                                            


                       3A copy of the translation for this Japanese patent                                                             
               application is attached.                                                                                                
                                                                  3                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007