Appeal No. 1998-0506
Application 08/314,994
The "modulation function" is described in the
specification as follows (specification, page 8, lines 4-7,
referring to figure 2; see also page 4, lines 30-34):
"function of permeance g(x) comprises a modulation function
that represents the effects of the reluctance of the slots
in the stator on the density of magnetic energy". As far as
we can tell, all slots of a stator inherently have a
"modulation function" inherently "functioning to modify the
distribution of the density of magnetic energy in the air
gap" as recited in claim 1. That De Filippis does not
mention a "modulation function" does not prevent
anticipation under the principles of inherency. It also
seems that the uniform stator slots in De Filippis would
inherently have a "modulation function which has a local
development symmetrical to a radial plane passing through
the center of the slot" as recited in claim 1. However,
this limitation has not been argued and is not addressed.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) (1995) ("For each rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 102, the argument shall specify the errors
in the rejection and why the rejected claims are patentable
under 35 U.S.C. 102, including any specific limitations in
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007