Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
We appreciate that the bobbin winder work station
housing of claims 8 and 13 has the recess that receives and
retains thereon and therein the stator, respectively. In light
of appellants’ underlying disclosure (specification, page 6, and
drawings), we understand this claim language to denote that the
bobbin winder work station housing is the housing of the motor.
This viewpoint is consistent with appellants’ disclosure wherein
the motor has no separate housing apart from the housing of the
bobbin winder work station housing. This claim interpretation is
also the apparent understanding of appellants, as we derive from
their argument (brief, pages 9 and 10).
Turning now to the applied prior art we find that, in
each of the Prodi and Nel patents, motors are surrounded by motor
housings in a conventional fashion. More specifically, the
casing for motor 8 in Prodi and the casing 10 for the motor of
Nel are clearly shown, with those casings being respectively
within the collection unit 5 and the casing cover 54. The
patents relied upon simply do not teach or suggest a recess of
the collection unit structure (Prodi) or the casing cover (Nel)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007