Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
from that depicted by FIG. 12 of Satake, arguing that the stator poles of the instant
device have surface areas which extend beyond the cylindrical edge of the roller@
and that the air gap in the submittal design is axial to the roller [brief-page 12]. We
agree with the examiner that the argued surface areas extending beyond the
cylindrical edge and the air gap being axial to the roller are not limitations of the
claimed subject matter and therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
At pages 12-13 of the brief, appellant sets forth the examiner's reasoning
with regard to the rejection of instant claim 8 but makes no argument as to
perceived errors in the examiner's reasoning. Accordingly, we will also sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 9 and 11, appellant makes no argument as to the
merits of the examiner's rejection, noting only that they are dependent claims
Awhich incorporate the elements of the earlier claims [brief-page 14]. Accordingly,
these claims will fall with the claims from which they depend.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007