Appeal No. 2003-0275 Page 15
Application No. 09/550,032
With regard to claim 11, the above-noted modification of Bodie does not result in
a retarding system having at least one magnet supported for rotation with the axle shaft.
In the modified system of Bodie the rotating magnet would be supported for rotation
with the motor shaft, not on the axle shaft as recited in claim 11. Moreover, in the
rejection of claim 11, the examiner failed to account for the limitation that the axle has a
housing extending between a pair of wheels and including an axle shaft rotatably
supported with respect to the housing for driving the wheels, a limitation not taught by
any of the applied prior art.
With regard to claim 15, the above-noted modification of Bodie does not result in
the step of generating a magnetic field between the rotating member and the axle
housing during braking to produce a retarding force. In the modified system of Bodie
the step of generating a magnetic field is done between the motor shaft and the motor
housing not the rotating member and the axle housing as recited in claim 1. Moreover,
in the rejection of claim 15, the examiner again failed to account for the step of
providing an axle housing extending between a pair of wheels, a limitation not taught by
any of the applied prior art.
With regard to claim 20, the above-noted modification of Boberg does not result
in a retarding system having at least one magnet mounted for rotation with at least one
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007