Appeal No. 1997-1162
Application 08/200,455
portion" as recited in claim 12 and shown by element 2 in
Appellant's figure 2.
MacLeod, figure 5, discloses the arrangement of yoke,
yoke holder, and magnets recited in generic claim 12 and the
inner-rotor arrangement of claims 14 and 15. Again, although
it would have been far better if the Examiner had specifically
addressed how the references disclosed the claimed
arrangement, the teachings are self-evident.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to address
the molded limitation of claims 17 and 18 (Br30-31). We
agree. It is not known what teachings in the references the
Examiner relies on for these limitations. We find that Simazu
discloses that most of the embodiments have a rotor casing and
hub that are "integrally molded" (col. 5, line 17); however,
this teaching is not pointed out and, in any case, is only
applicable to the rejection of Simazu over Voll and Fruge.
Recommendation
In the Final Rejection (FR6, second-to-last line), the
Examiner refers to Hishida et al. (Hishida), U.S. Patent
5,045,738, issued September 3, 1991, as showing a sleeve
- 16 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007