Appeal No. 1997-2852
Application No. 08/354,454
the examiner's assertion (Answer, page 4), Miyatake fails to
meet the limitation in the last paragraph of claim 4.
Furthermore, the examiner contends (Answer, page 5) that
it would have been obvious to provide in Miyatake's device
"the magnetic field generating means as taught by Naito et al
in lieu of the magnetic field generating means of Miyatake."
However, Naito does not address using varying magnetic field
intensities like the two coil magnets in Miyatake. Therefore,
it is unclear how the single rotatable magnet of Naito could
replace the two coil magnetic field generating means of
Miyatake. In other words, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Consequently, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through
4.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007