Appeal No. 1999-2388
Application 08/758,513
comprising an array of permanent magnets that provide a
uniform dipole field. Element 42 is described as a single
magnet. The examiner has also followed a per se rule of
obviousness that the rearrangement of parts is not patentable.
It is the specific rearrangement and orientation of the parts
of the invention which are disclosed to give the E-M battery
its unique characteristics. This discovered arrangement of
parts cannot simply be dismissed by the examiner. The device
of Paulsen also does not appear to provide a rotor which
stores kinetic energy. Claim 1 recites a means for providing
power to the stator windings such that the rotor will store
kinetic energy. The examiner has not interpreted this means
in light of appellant’s disclosure, and the examiner has not
considered whether the corresponding means in Paulsen is an
obvious equivalent to the means disclosed by appellant. For
all of these reasons, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-9.
We now consider the rejection of claim 5 based on
Paulsen and Post and the rejection of claim 6 based on Paulsen
and Leupold. Paulsen suffers the deficiencies noted above.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007