Appeal No. 1998-0506
Application 08/314,994
this solution as proposed by De Filippis is not
equivalent to Applicant's utilizing
a modulation function to modify the distribution of the
density of magnetic energy in an air gap in each slot
of the stator to reduce the reluctance torque.
Appellant's other arguments all deal with De Filippis'
failure to teach the use of a "modulation function" to
reduce reluctance torque.
The Examiner responds (EA4):
Applicant's claim fails to set forth the 'modulation
function' as a structural limitation of the motor. De
Filippis discloses all the structural limitations of
Appellant's claim 1. Since all the structural
limitations of the motor disclosed by De Filippis are
the same as that of Appellant's claim 1, the motor of
De Filippis should function in the same manner as
Appellant's.
Appellant's argument that De Filippis does not teach
utilizing a modulation function to modify the distribution
of the density of magnetic energy in the air gap to reduce
the reluctance torque (Br13) does not clearly describe the
factual issue. The modulation function alone is not
responsible for reducing the reluctance torque. It is the
claimed alignment of the slots (which have a modulation
function) with increasing and decreasing transitions in the
magnitude of magnetic energy of the permanent magnet
elements that reduces the torque.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007