Appeal No. 2004-1072 Page 8
Application No. 09/868,150
a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning that shortly before the moveable armature 2 of
Uemura reaches the end position shown in Figure 1, the electromagnetic coil 5 acts on
the flat portion 2a of the armature 2 by way of the ring-shaped projection 6a of the outer
yoke 6 in an effective range whereby a second magnetic flux is formed, wherein the
second magnetic flux flows through a second working air gap. The examiner's position
that the second magnetic flux is readable on the flux generated by Uemura when the
electric current in the second direction or in the direction opposite to the first direction is
applied to the electromagnetic coil 5 is without merit since the claimed second magnetic
flux must be formed shortly before the moveable armature reaches an end position (i.e.,
shortly before armature 2 has reached the solid line position shown in Figure 1 from the
position shown by broken lines in Figure 1).
Since the examiner has not clearly set forth a prima facie case of anticipation
based on inherency, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 7, and claims 8 to 10
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) must be reversed. However, since we
believe that a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning exists that the claimed forming of
a second magnetic flux is inherent in Uemura, for the reasons provided below, we enter
the following new ground of rejection under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007