Appeal No. 95-3194
Application 08/020,232
manner (see, for example, FIG. 1 of Konecny). Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 15.
2. The rejection of claims 5 and 6 as
unpatentable over the teachings of
Finegold in view of Obradovic, Konecny
or the admitted prior art, and further
in view of Newberg.
This rejection is explained on page 4 of the answer.
Although claims 5 and 6 were rejected using the additional
teachings of Newberg, appellants have presented no separate
arguments in support of the patentability of these claims. In
fact, appellants have indicated that claims 5 and 6 should stand
or fall with claim 1 [brief, page 5]. Therefore, since we
sustained the rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the rejection
of claims 5 and 6.
3. The rejection of claims 16 and 17 as
unpatentable over the teachings of
Finegold in view of Obradovic, Konecny
or the admitted prior art, and further
in view of Shirakawa, Gaser or Sakurai.
This rejection is explained in the paragraph bridging
pages 4 and 5 of the answer. Specifically, the examiner cites
each of Shirakawa, Gaser and Sakurai as a teaching in sensing the
position of the rotor with respect to the stator in a motor. The
examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to use one of these sensing means in the Finegold motor as
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007