Appeal No. 1997-1162
Application 08/200,455
but merely provided an unsupported conclusion that "the prior
art does teach the particular claimed positions of the magnets
and yokes as set forth in the rejections" (FR7). It is argued
(Br31): "The Final Action has not identified any prior art
describing the structure of claims 12-15 and 17-18, thus
failing to provide any support for a conclusion of obviousness
of the structure recited therein over the applied art and
failing to establish even prima facie obviousness."
Stefansky, figure 1, Fruge, figure 2, and Simazu, figures
1 and 8, disclose the arrangement of yoke, yoke holder,
magnets, and rotor flange as recited in generic claim 12 and,
specifically, the outer-rotor arrangement of claim 13. This
outer-rotor arrangement is also admitted to be prior art in
Appellant's figure 12. Although it would have been far better
if the Examiner had specifically addressed how the references
disclosed the claimed arrangement, the teachings are so plain
that Appellant cannot profess ignorance of how the references
are intended to be applied to meet the claims. We do find,
however, that the yoke holder (stator support 7) in Jabbari,
figure 2, is not "concentrically surrounding said sleeve
- 15 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007