Appeal No. 2005-0156
Application No. 09/816,348
(brief, page 4) is unpersuasive because claim 1 does not actually
call for the cylinder portion to be continuous. Collectively,
the holder plate elements 45a, 45b and 45c define a “cylindrical
portion” to the extent broadly recited in claim 1. Moreover, it
is arguable that each of the portions of the holder plate 45
carrying the spacers 45b constitutes such a “cylindrical
portion.”
The examiner’s related determination (see pages 6 and 8 in
the answer) that Moribayashi’s bent portion 43 as shown in Figure
33 meets reinforcing portion limitations in claim 11 also is well
founded.1 As clearly shown in the drawing figure, the bent
portion 43, which is provided in the vicinity of an end portion
of the stator (magnets 42), includes bent portions that are
formed by end portions of the case body (yoke 41) and bent toward
an inside thereof intermittently around an inner circumferential
surface, wherein the bent portions have a U-shape and the stator
is fixed at a portion of the inner circumferential surface of the
case body which corresponds to a base portion of the U-shape.
1 In contrast, the examiner’s findings that Moribayashi’s punched
out portions 19 (Figure 19) and holder plate 45 meet the reinforcing
portion limitations in claim 11 is unsound. Neither the punched out
portions 19 nor the holder plate 45 are formed by end portions of the
case body (yoke 16), and the punched out portions 19 do not have a U-
shape from any reasonable perspective.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007