Appeal No. 96-2202
Application 08/117,088
Baerman [sic, Baermann], and Japan (917) each teach the
magnetic bearing structure including the specific
arrangement of rotor [sic] the permanent magnets.
Bauman [sic] uses only permanent magnets, while Japan
(917) uses an electromagnet on the stator in
combination with the permanent rotor magnets.
McMichael teaches providing a superconductor opposing
permanent magnets to act as a bearing. Use of a super
conducts [sic] in lieu of either permanent or standard
electromagnets has the advantage of increased capacity
for the bearing. For at least this reason it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide Baerman [sic] or Japan (917) with a
superconductive stator (Answer, page 3).
Appellants respond with the argument that "the adjacent
permanent magnets of Baerman [sic] and Japan '917 directly abut
upon each other, instead of being spaced apart," and as a result
of this touching of the permanent magnets, the "magnetic fluxes
converge," and "[t]his makes it difficult for the fluxes to
penetrate into the superconductors" (Brief, page 9). We agree.
The plurality of annular magnets in Figures 1 through 5 of
Baermann, and the plurality of annular magnets in Figures 2, 4
and 5 of Hanami (Japan '917) are not arranged on a disk at a
"spacing" radially of a rotary body as claimed. On the other
hand, Figure 1 of McMichael discloses a superconductor bearing
device in which disk shaped stator 106 has a plurality of annular
permanent magnets 108 and 110 "arranged on the disk at a spacing
radially" of the body of the stator, and a superconductor 104
opposed to an end face of the stator, and axially spaced from the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007