Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
magnetic fields. The examiner then combines this with the teaching of Welch in
order to improve efficiency and increase torque.
Appellant's response is to argue that Jacobsen fails to consider the effect of
large air gaps while appellant Arelies on the large forces developed by small gap
solenoids and provides a mechanism to efficiently realize the potential
afforded by the repelling forces [brief-page 8]. However, appellant fails to point
to any particular structure in the instant claims on which he relies and it appears that
appellant is again arguing limitations which do not appear in the claims.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Claim 3 adds the limitation that the number of stator poles is one more than
the number of roller poles. While recognizing that the combination of Welch and
Jacobsen does not provide for this limitation, the examiner notes that Welch
suggests that the revolutions of the output shaft are dependent on the relative
diameters of the stator, rotor and output shaft ring and that these parameters could
then be varied to produce the required output to match with the number of stator
poles. However, since Burgbacher teaches, at column 2, lines 36-45, that the
number of stator poles should be one greater than the number of rotor poles in
order to reduce torque fluctuations, the examiner held it
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007