Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
With regard to claim 5, the examiner brings in the reference to Kawai for the
teaching that [g]enerally, the greater the number of electromagnets, the smoother
the turning movement of the motor [Kawai, column 2, lines 36-38]. The examiner
then uses this teaching to hold that the use of twelve roller poles and thirteen stator
poles would have been obvious, in view of Kawai's teaching
taken together with Welch, Jacobsen and Burgbacher. In our view, the examiner
has made out a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues only that the instant invention is materially and substantially
different than the discoveries of Welch, Jacobsen and
Burgbacher [brief-page 11] and proceeds to discuss diameters not being varied to
produce the required output to match the stator poles. Appellant's argument clearly
fails to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner
with regard to claim 5. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim
5 under 35 U.S.C. '103.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, the examiner combines Satake's plurality of
roller poles arranged around the cylindrical outer surface of the roller so that the
poles alternate in polarity (citing Satake's Figure 12) with the roller-type motor of
Welch.
Appellant argues that Satake's arrangement is typical of a conventional
rotating machine [brief-page 12] and that the instant device is totally different
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007