Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 4
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See
37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 6-9 and 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The
examiner’s position (answer, page 3) is that the term “type” in
line 2 of claim 6 is indefinite. Appellant (reply brief, page 2)
argues to the effect that there are different types of magnets,
such as a horseshoe “type” magnet.
We find (specification, page 5) that rotor 14 comprises an
inner shaft 28. Yoke 29, which is made of stamped sheets, is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007