Appeal No. 2000-1951
Application No. 08/980,969
the examiner cites Xuan and Galie with regard to claims 3 and 10, and Xuan and Triponez
with regard to claims 4-9.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In accordance with appellant’s grouping of the claims at the bottom of page 2 of the
principal brief, all claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on instant
independent claim 1.
Thus, the issue before us is whether claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) by Xuan. The more specific issue is whether Xuan teaches the claim limitation,
“so that the part of said planar structure defining said second magnetic pole surrounds the
part of this planar structure defining said first magnetic stator pole...”
The applied references to Galie and Triponez will have no bearing on our decision
herein since, if we find for the examiner on the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) issue, claims 3-10,
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, will fall with claim 1 and, if we find for appellant on the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) issue, neither Galie nor Triponez provides for the language, “planar
structure defining said second magnetic pole surrounds the part of this planar structure
defining said first magnetic stator pole” and there are no arguments presented to the
contrary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007