Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 16
Riggs are in the outer type rotor, that it is well known in the
art that a rotor can be made as either the outer type or the
inner type.
We find that Riggs supports the position of the examiner,
disclosing (col. 4, lines 17 and 18) that “[a]nother possible
construction has the rotor within the stator." Because Riggs
teaches that an alternate construction would be to have the rotor
within the stator, we are not persuaded by appellant’s argument
that Riggs does not show the claimed structure in an arrangement
wherein the rotor is fixed within an outer housing.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We turn next to claims 6 and 11. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner offers Shiraki, in addition to
Shirakawa, Knappe, and Carrier. The examiner’s position is that
it would have been obvious to provide a protective coating on the
magnets as taught by Shiraki (col. 7, lines 20-40). Appellant’s
position (brief, page 5) is that Shiraki relates to a linear
motor which includes a plurality of windings, which do not
surround radially projecting armature cores. Appellant argues
that Shiraki does not disclose sheet type magnets that are
affixed to the face of a magnet carrier that faces away from the
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007