Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 14
arrangement 28. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to claim 5. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5)
that in Shirakawa and Knappe, the detector magnet is disposed
axially outside the of the armature windings. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 12) is that this feature is shown by
Carrier (28 and 32). From our review of the prior art, we find
that in Carrier, FG magnet 32 is outside the axial extent of
armature windings 19, as clearly shown in figure 2. Accordingly,
we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of claim 5. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 10. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5)
that this feature of the embodiment of figures 8-10 is not found
in the prior art. The examiner’s position (answer, page 12) is
that the claimed projections are met by 41, 42 of Knappe. We
agree with the examiner. We find that Knappe discloses (col. 4,
lines 11-14) that the plastic bushing 4 is pushed such that
axially protruding snap hooks 41, 42 extend through corresponding
grooves 31, 32 in the magnet body and engage the left end side of
magnet body 3. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007