Appeal No. 2000-2081
Application 08/656,082
claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 on appeal.
Given the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellant's claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22,
27 through 29 and 31 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims, turning first to the rejection of claims
1 through 6, 12, 14, 16 through 19, 27 and 29 through 32 under
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson. After a careful
assessment of appellants’ independent claims 1, 14, 27, 29 and
30 and of the Anderson reference, we must agree with
appellants’ position as set forth in the brief (pages 6-8) and
in the reply brief, that Anderson does not disclose the method
of constructing a salient pole motor as defined in the claims
on appeal. Indeed, Anderson does not once mention salient
pole motors, and the examiner’s reliance on the statement in
Anderson that the apparatus and method therein can be used for
axially inserting
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007