Appeal No. 1997-0907
Application 08/291,642
references and that, therefore, there is no valid basis for
appellants' assertion that the examiner has engaged in
prohibitive hindsight reconstruction. Indeed, it is even
arguable that the examiner's position may have been better
stated by combining the teachings of Castor and Shimada
together initially with additional supportive teachings from
Wang to have achieved perhaps a stronger overall stated
rejection.
The earlier noted feature of independent claims 1 and 4
on appeal of the biasing means being "separate from said yoke"
is not distinguished over the use of the magnetic screw
holding member 8 in the two embodiments in Shimada depicted in
Figures 1 through 3. There is no requirement of the quoted
claim language of the biasing means to be physically separate
from the yoke 3 as in Shimada. Even though as shown in these
figures that the holding means 8 is a part of or attached to
the yoke 3, it is still identified as a separate element from
the yoke. Indeed, it also provides a separate or additional
magnetic field to effect the stated functions of the biasing
means clause of claims 1 and 4 on appeal. Additionally, to
the extent the armature (core 12 and coil 13) in Castor, being
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007