Appeal No. 2002-0875
Application 09/212,127
We note that Appellants’ independent claim 1 recites
“one or more electromagnets attached to said structure and
arranged generally in a plane that is substantially parallel to,
but not within, the plane or planes containing said permanent
magnets.” We note that the other independent claims, claims 11,
21, 31, 32 and 33, recite the same or similar language. Further-
more, we agree with the Appellants that the language should be
construed to mean that the electromagnets must be arranged in a
plane that is substantially parallel to the plane or planes
containing the permanent magnets. The language also must be
construed to mean that the plane that contains the electromagnets
must not be the same plane as the plane or planes containing the
permanent magnets.
We agree with the Appellants that Goldman does not
teach electromagnets arranged generally in a plane that is
substantially parallel to, but not within, the plane or planes
containing the permanent magnets. As shown in Figure 1, Goldman
teaches a pair of electromagnets and permanent magnets in a
U-shaped fashion. In particular, Goldman teaches a U-shaped
electromagnet 4 and a U-shaped permanent magnet 7. As shown,
the U-shaped electromagnet 4 is paired with a similar U-shaped
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007