Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 4
Application No. 08/577,839
We have carefully reviewed, inter alia, the applied
references, as well as the arguments presented by appellants
and the examiner. As a result of such a review we will sustain
the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we will not
sustain the rejection of any other claim based on the
references and rationale applied by the examiner.
With regard to independent claim 1, although rather broad
in scope, the claim does require a conductive “ring” and it is
in that ring in which rotating flux “induces a time-varying
current.” The examiner applies Persson, which describes a DC
motor having many of the characteristics disclosed by the
instant application but, as the examiner admits, Persson does
not disclose “a conductive ring for damping (reducing) the
vibration which is caused by the changes of the rotating
magnetic flux” [answer-page 4]. The examiner then relies on
“end ring 21" of King and the teaching of Allegre, of
installing a damping winding which includes two conductor
rings, to conclude that it would have been obvious “to include
at least one or two conductive rings, as taught by King and
Allegre, in the Persson d.c. motor because this would reduce
the unwanted vibration in the motor” [answer-page 4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007