Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
that the obviousness of such a replacement is nothing more than a
bald conclusion by the examiner [brief, page 8]. However, since
the only purpose of the stator coil is to generate an
electromagnetic field between the stator and the rotor, and since
Finegold clearly teaches that a coil of strapping or foil wire
will generate such a field, we are of the view that the artisan
would have found it obvious to broadly make the coils for a
variable reluctance motor out of strapping or foil wire.
For all the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 3, 4 and 14
are grouped with claim 1 so that we also sustain the rejection of
these claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, appellants argue that
there is no suggestion in any of the applied references of the
stator flats as recited in these claims [brief, page 10]. The
examiner responds that Finegold clearly shows foil wire having
flats [answer, page 6]. We see no relevance of the examiner’s
statement to the stator flats as recited in these claims.
Although these claims may be viewed as only slightly modifying
the invention of claim 1, the examiner’s response is not
pertinent to the claim limitations and we can find nothing in the
applied references which would have suggested the use of stator
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007