Appeal No. 1999-1927
Application No. 08/499,367
made by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37
CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claim 3 based on De La Riboisiere and Perkins.
The examiner basically finds that De La Riboisiere teaches the claimed invention except
that De La Riboisiere does not teach two C-shaped end casings which clamp two
magnetic poles therebetween. The examiner cites Perkins as teaching the use of two C-
shaped end covers for securing the field-frame of a motor to the end covers. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to provide separate C-shaped end
casings to clamp the magnetic poles of De La Riboisiere in order to securely clamp the
stator core to the end covers [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that the C-shaped sections of Perkins are not made of magnetic
material as required by the claim. Appellant also argues that the magnetic poles of De La
Riboisiere and Perkins are formed integrally with the yoke so that there is no reason why
they would be clamped in the manner recited in claim 3. In summary, appellant argues that
neither De La Riboisiere nor Perkins teaches or suggests the clamping of separate
magnetic poles between two C-shaped magnetic structures [brief, pages 4-8].
The examiner responds that Perkins was cited to teach end covers which clamp a
field-frame therebetween. It is the examiner’s position that if the field-frame of Perkins is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007