Appeal No. 2002-0588
Application No. 08/566,206
with appellants that any of the prior art references specifically teaches away from the
claimed invention, but do agree that the references teach various other means and
methodologies different than that recited in appellants’ independent claims 1 and 19.
Appellants argue that the prior art references must teach every limitation recited
in independent claim 1. Appellants argue that Knutson does not teach “a first
permanent magnet positioned outside of the bore and in facing relation to the first end
face of the plunger along the bore axis, the first permanent magnet attracting the
plunger thereto” and “a second permanent magnet positioned outside of the bore and in
facing relation to the second end face of the plunger along the bore axis, the second
permanent magnet attracting the plunger thereto” wherein the magnets of Knutson are
annular and do not face the end faces of the sliding armature. (See brief at page 5.)
We agree with appellants, but find that Philips teaches the magnets facing the plunger.
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites “a bipolar electrical DC power supply
operatively connected to the electromagnet through a sense switch, whereby a polarity
of the electromagnet may be reversed by operation of the sense switch, the plunger
being retained adjacent to one of the permanent magnets when the electromagnet is
not energized” and Knutson teaches that the armature is centered when the power is
turned off. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellants. From our review, we find
that Philips teaches that the body/plunger is maintained in position by magnetic
adhesion, but that Philips teaches the use of pulses of identical polarity to move the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007