Appeal No. 2001-0648
Application No. 07/702,615
contends that it is “inherent” [answer-page 4] that the different
brush arms cause a reliable brush contact with the commutator.
However, the examiner recognizes that Kojima does not teach
making the brush arms of different materials. The examiner turns
to Takeshita for a teaching of “the equivalency of different size
brushes, brushes of different materials, and a slit in one of the
brushes to change the resonant frequency between two brush arms”
[answer-page 4].
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
construct the motor of Mabuchi with brush arms having different
resonant frequencies due to different materials in the brush arms
because Kojima teaches “that different resonant frequencies in
adjacent brushes reduces (sic) noise and unequal rotation in a
motor and because [Takeshita] teaches the equivalence of changing
the resonance frequency in two brush arms by different size brush
arms, different materials in the brush arms, and a slot in one of
the brush arms, where selection of know (sic, known) equivalents
is within the ordinary skill in the art” [answer-page 4].
Appellant contends that Mabuchi does not have a brush body,
as contended by the examiner because Mabuchi is directed to
fingerleaf brushes while the instant claims are directed to a
brush assembly of the type having support arms with “each arm
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007