Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 13
plurality of segments that are magnetized with a polarity that is
opposite to the polarity of adjacent magnet segments. From all
of the above, we find that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 1 that has not been
successfully rebutted by appellant. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 2. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 4
and 5) that although Knappe shows a magnetic carrier, that is
made of non-magnetic material, Knappe does not show magnets
embedded in the carrier. The examiner (answer, page 12) relies
upon Knappe for a teaching of embedded magnets (figure 10)
detachably connected to the carrier. Although Knappe shows
magnet 3 embedded within magnet 3, Knappe does not disclose that
the magnet carrier 4, 7, and 8, carries a plurality of magnets 3.
However, Carrier teaches that both groups of circumferentially
located magnets are made of plural segments that have opposing
polarity. In addition, Carrier discloses (col. 2, lines 43-47)
that “[t]hese magnet segments may be discrete elements, but are
preferably formed in an integral cylindrical body of a hard
magnetic material such as ceramic, as is well known in the art. ”
From this teaching of Carrier, we find that an artisan would have
been taught to embed the magnet sections in the magnet
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007