Appeal No. 96-2202
Application 08/117,088
interchangeability of a rotor and a stator, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the roles
of the rotor and stator in Figure 1 of McMichael, and arrange the
permanent magnets 108 and 110 on a rotor, and the superconductor
104 on a stator.
Although the obviousness rejection is based upon Baermann or
Hanami in view of McMichael, it is perfectly permissible to
sustain the rejection of claim 5 in light of McMichael alone.
See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 495-96, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claim 5 is
sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 7 is
sustained because of appellants' grouping of the claims (Brief,
page 6).
In response to the obviousness rejection of claims 8 through
10, appellants argue (Brief, pages 12 through 16) that the
permanent magnets in Rosensweig, Meeks, Wasson and Agarwala
"abut" each other, and that McMichael and Agarwala do not cure
the deficiencies of Rosensweig, Meeks and Wasson. We agree. The
obviousness rejection of claims 8 through 10 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 5 through 7 and is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007