Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
We affirm.
We turn first to independent claim 1. We agree with the examiner that
Welch discloses all that is claimed, including the housing, a plurality of stator
poles, a roller, a plurality of roller poles positioned as claimed, and a control means
for reversing magnetic polarity of the stator poles, as claimed.
Appellant contends that there are Amajor differences between the device of
subject invention and that of Welch [brief-page 5].
First, appellant contends that Figure 2 of Welch shows a geared output shaft,
an internally and externally geared roller and an internally geared stator whereas the
instant claimed invention has no gearing and that claim 1 Anow positively recites
the absence of gear teeth which is different from Welch's teachings [brief-page 6].
As the examiner points out [answer-page 4], instant claim 1 contains no
recitation of the absence of gear teeth because the amendment after final was
refused entry. Accordingly, appellant's argument in this regard is not persuasive
since it is based on limitations which do not appear in the claim. Moreover, as the
examiner again points out, Welch teaches the use of gear teeth to be a preference
but clearly recognizes that an embodiment having no gear teeth may be used. See
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007