Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 20, 21,
25, and 27 is reversed.
Petersen has been added to the rejection as to
claims 22-24 (and, presumably, claims 28 and 29 as noted in
footnote 5); Yamashita has been added as to claim 26; and
Petersen and Moon have been added as to the rejection of
claim 30. These references do not overcome the deficiencies
of Hajec and Rabe. The rejections of claims 22-24, 26, and
28-30 are also reversed.
Claims 11, 33, and 34
The Examiner finds that MacLeod discloses that it was
well known to provide a rotor magnet having a multiplicity of
poles with each pole magnetized to generate fields having two
separate orientations and concludes that it would have been
obvious to form the magnet in Hajec as taught by MacLeod
(FR3-4).
Appellant argues that it is not possible to mount
MacLeod's main field magnet on the inner surface of Hajec's
hub 16 due to the presence of the stator core 34 located
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007