Appeal No. 1997-2808
Application No. 08/313,129
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellants argue:
All independent claims set forth first
poles having a first number of teeth and second
poles, alternately disposed between said first
poles, having a second number of teeth greater than
the first number of teeth. (Brief-page 9.)
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ specification
...appears to indicate that what is important about
alternating the poles is having poles with differing
number of teeth oppose each other, and not
completely alternating the poles so that poles with
four teeth, and poles with five teeth are always
adjacent. ... Applicant’s specification simply does
not explain the importance of alternating poles with
different numbers of teeth, and it appears that
applicant’s alternating of poles is merely an
obvious design choice over the
invention disclosed by Satomi. The only difference
between the Satomi reference and applicant’s claimed
invention is that while Satomi substantially
alternates the poles so that poles of four teeth
oppose poles of five teeth, applicant only makes the
obvious step of completely alternating the poles.
(Answer-pages 4 and 5.)
Appellants further argue “Applicants do not claim
poles which ‘substantially alternate’” and “The Examiner has
failed to provide any evidence of record as to why one skilled
in the art would modify a pole arrangement which
‘substantially alternates’ to a pole arrangement which simply
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007