Appeal No. 2002-0816
Application No. 09/442,895 Page 18
the rejection of claim 3, supra. With regard to claims 8 and 13,
we find that Riggs discloses second set of magnets 20, 22, 24,
and 26 to be axially disposed within the axial extent of the
armature windings 30 in the direction of the rotor axis (figure
1). From this teaching of Riggs, and the teaching in Riggs that
another possible construction has the rotor within the stator, we
find that upon putting the rotor within the stator, that the
plurality of second magnets would be within the axial extent of
the armature windings. From the disclosure of Riggs, we
therefore find that an artisan would have been motivated to make
the second set of magnets within the axial extent of the armature
windings, as taught by Riggs. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 8 and 13. In addition, we affirm the
rejection of claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Carrier disclosed a detector plate 36 having a plurality of Hall
sensors 30A, 30B, and 30C circumferentially spaced and positioned
at one side of the armature. We consider Rigg’s Hall sensors to
be surplusage.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers
Stokes in addition to Shirakawa, Knappe, and Carrier. The
examiner asserts (answer, page 9) that Stokes shows the magnet
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007