Appeal No. 1998-0647
Application 08/414,004
examiner's common view that the claimed rotary shaft is the
rotor 1 of Figure 1 of Kawashima and the magnetic bearing
means in turn comprises electromagnets 2a, 2b. The examiner
takes the additional view at page 4 of the answer that the
rotor 1 also comprises the motor of the claim and that the
same electromagnets 2a, 2b provide the magnetic bearings
associated therewith, thus, meeting the feature of "a combined
motor and magnetic bearing device." We disagree. To the
extent that the combined motor and the magnetic bearing device
of the claim may comprise rotor 1 and electromagnets 2a, 2b of
Kawashima, there is no remaining teaching or showing of the
reference to comprise the claimed rotary shaft and the
magnetic bearing means of representative independent claim 1
on appeal. The examiner can't have it both ways.
The examiner does not rely upon the feature at column 3,
lines 49-52 that "the rotor 1 is rotated by an unillustrated
induction motor while being held afloat in accordance with the
target value (C)" which has been computed to be the midpoint
between two limit positions in accordance with the logic of
the flow chart in Figure 2 of Kawashima. Again, even
according to this teaching of a separate motor in addition to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007