Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
flats as recited in claims 7 and 8. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of these claims.
With respect to claim 9, appellants argue that there is
no teaching in any of the applied references of a means for
retaining the coils on the poles [brief, page 11]. The examiner
responds that Finegold clearly teaches such a means [answer, page
6]. We agree with the examiner that Finegold would have
suggested to the artisan the broad idea of a means for retaining
the stator coils on the stator poles. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 9. Since appellants merely list what is
recited in claims 10-13 without any additional arguments as to
why these limitations would not have been obvious to the artisan,
these claims stand or fall with claim 9 from which they depend.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 10-13.
With respect to claim 15, appellants argue that there is
no teaching in any of the applied references of the start and
finish windings extending circumferentially about the coils
[brief, page 12]. The examiner responds that Finegold teaches
this feature in his terminals 50 and 76 [answer, page 6].
Although Finegold only shows two terminals for all the coils, we
agree with the examiner that the separate coils of a variable
reluctance motor are typically situated in a circumferential
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007