Appeal No. 2002-0875
Application 09/212,127
permanent magnet 7 with their backs together and their open end
facing outward. See Figure 1 of Goldman. Thus, the Goldman
electromagnet is in the same plane as the Goldman permanent
magnet. Therefore, Goldman does not teach one or more electro-
magnets attached to the structure and arranged generally in a
plane that is substantially parallel to, but not within, the
plane or planes containing said permanent magnets as recited in
Appellants’ claims.
Turning to the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16,
18, 19, 25, 26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stridsberg in view of Goldman and further in
view of Wakuta, we note that Wakuta does not teach the above
limitation as well. Therefore, we will not sustain this
rejection for the same reasons as presented above. Turning to
the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stridsberg in view of Goldman and further in
view of Lutz, we note that Lutz fails to teach the above
limitation as well. Therefore, we will not sustain this
rejection for the same reasons as presented above as well.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007