Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 17
rotor, and that even though Shiraki may disclose protective
coatings, Shiraki does not make up for the defects mentioned in
the other claims.
We find that FG magnets 32 of Carrier are sheet "type" and
are affixed to a face of magnet carrier that faces away from the
rotor. As asserted by the examiner, Shiraki discloses (col. 7,
lines 28-32) that to prevent the generation of dust or corrosion,
the surface of the magnet is coated with a protection film. From
this disclosure of Shiraki, we find that an artisan would have
been taught to have provided a protective coating on the second
set of magnets, as advanced by the examiner. The fact that
Shiraki is directed to a linear motor does not detract from the
teaching of providing the magnet with a protective coating to
prevent dust and corrosion. From all of the above, we affirm the
rejection of claim 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7-9 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
offers Riggs in addition to Shirakawa, Knappe, Carrier, and
Shiraki. The examiner relies upon Riggs for a teaching of
aligning the first and second sets of magnets. We make reference
to our findings, supra, with respect to Riggs, and affirm the
rejection of claim 7 and 12 for the same reasons as we affirmed
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007