Appeal No. 2005-0375
Application No. 09/826,422
that Heidelberg does not show a feature of the permanent magnets of the
rotor in the angular rotor clause of claim 1 on appeal. They are stated to
be separated by gaps, where this gap distance is different from the gap
distance between the magnetic poles of the stator clause of claim 1 on
appeal.
The figure 1 and figures 5a embodiments in Heidelberg show that the
permanent magnets 8 of rotor 4 have no gaps between them, and it is
stated at column 4, lines 53-55 that “permanent magnets 8 are directly
adjacent each other in the peripheral direction” at least in the figure 1
embodiment. On the other hand, the figure 3 showing in Heidelberg
contrasts the showing in figure 1. In figure 3 the rotor 4 is said to have
electromagnets 12 thereon, whereas the rotor 4 has permanent magnets 8
thereon in figure 1. Additionally, the stator 6 in figure 3 has permanent
magnets 8 thereon, whereas the stator 6 in figure 1 has electromagnets 12
thereon. The teachings at column 7, lines 42 and 43 also essentially make
figure 3 similar to the structure of figure 1 where it is stated that
“permanent magnets 8 may also be provided on rotor 4 and electro-
magnets 12 on stator 6” in presenting an alternative embodiment of the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007