Appeal No. 96-1301
Application 08/175,078
Our affirmance of the prior art rejection is based only
on the arguments presented by appellants in their brief.
Arguments not raised in the briefs are not before us, are not
at issue, and are not considered.
The Indefiniteness Rejection
The examiner rejected claim 22, stating that “said magnet
pieces” lacks antecedent basis, thereby making the claim
indefinite. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or
phrases which, in context, makes the scope of what is claimed
not reasonably clear. Here, claim 22 refers to “said magnet
pieces” but no magnet pieces have been previously defined.
Accordingly, it is not known what features or limitations have
been modified by the reference to “said magnet pieces.”
Consequently, claim 22 is indefinite.
Prior Art Rejections
For purposes of the prior art rejections, the appellants
represent that all rejected claims stand or fall with claim 1.
(Brief, at 5).
Appellants’ claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-19, 21 and 22 stand
finally rejected as being anticipated by Hawsey. Hawsey
teaches an alternator with a rotor disposed between a pair of
stators (see abstract, lines 5-8). The rotor, which is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007