Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
We agree with the Examiner that "near" is relative and
does not define over Hajec. Also, the "base end" can refer to
a region of the shaft, not just the very bottom of the shaft,
which makes the term "near" even less precise. The spindle
hub is more broadly recited in claim 14 than in claim 9 and
the limitations of the hub have not been argued. For these
reasons, we conclude that Appellant has failed to show error
in the anticipation rejection of claim 14. Claim 15 falls
together with claim 14. The rejection of claims 14 and 15 is
sustained.
Claims 31 and 32
Appellant argues (Br8), with respect to claim 31, that
the Examiner has admitted that Hajec does not have a plurality
of poles and the anticipation rejection must be reversed. The
Examiner states that the statement is taken out of context
from an obviousness rejection and that Hajec does teach a
magnet means with a plurality of poles (EA6).
The Examiner's rejection did state that Hajec does not
disclose a magnet with a plurality of poles (FR3). However,
it is clear that what the Examiner meant was that Hajec does
not disclose a magnet with a plurality of poles where each
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007