Appeal No. 2001-2455
Application 08/439,490
limitations.” Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.,
227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(quoting Kotzab, 217 F.3d at 1371, 55 USPQ2d at 1317).
The examiner maintains that each of the primary
references, Landau, Schuhmacher and Kerschbaumer, disclose the
invention as claimed in claims 1-26 and 29-41 with the exception
that “direct cooling is not discussed and a tension supporting
structure in the center is not discussed.” Examiner’s Answer,
Paper No. 16, mailed October 8, 1998, page 4. The examiner
maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified
the primary references to include the tension support structure
of Urbanek. Id. (referencing figure 2 of Urbanek).2
Claims 27 and 28 include the additional limitation
of a shield. It is the examiner’s position that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to have used Henderson’s shielding means to shield
the peripheral portion of the target of the primary references
2Demaray teaches rotating magnetic means and is relied on
for a showing of moveable magnets recited in various dependent
claims. Examiner’s Answer, page 4.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007