Appeal No. 1999-2388
Application 08/758,513
down the axis of the dipole field; (iii) a rotor outside the
stator; and (iv) two orthogonal windings electrically
decoupled from each other [brief, pages 7-9].
The examiner responds that the drive magnet 42 of
Paulsen is considered to be a rotor for purposes of the
claimed invention. The examiner also notes that Paulsen
teaches that the stator windings can be orthogonal to each
other in order to provide low electromagnetic coupling between
the coils. Finally,
the examiner asserts that locating the stator inside of the
rotor is an obvious modification and well known in the art
[answer, pages 5-6].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-4 and 7-9 because the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. There are several features
recited in representative claim 1 which are either not
addressed by the examiner or are simply dismissed by the
examiner as being obvious. Specifically, the examiner has not
addressed the fact that Paulsen does not disclose a rotor
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007