Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 15
We turn next to claim 15. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5)
that the two sensors of Knappe associate with a single magnet.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 12) is that Carrier shows
three sensors 30A, 30B, and 30C which cooperate with the
plurality of circumferential spaced magnets 32. We agree.
Figure 1 of Carrier shows sensors 30A, 30B, and 30C disposed at
different angular positions for detecting the radially directed
poles of magnet 28. From this teaching of Carrier, we find that
an artisan would have been motivated to use plural sensors along
with the plural magnet segments of Carrier. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner additionally
offers Riggs. Appellant asserts (brief, page 5) that Riggs does
indeed show the claimed features of the second set of magnets
being aligned with the first set of magnets, but asserts that
Riggs “does not show this construction in connection with an
arrangement wherein the rotor is fixed within a fixed outer
housing but rather shows an arrangement wherein the rotor is the
outer housing. Hence, the detector must be positioned in a
different place from that claimed. ” The examiner’s position
(answer, pages 6, 7, and 12) is that although the magnets of
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007