Appeal No. 2005-0375
Application No. 09/826,422
from the gap distance between the electromagnets at the bottom of
figure 3 on the stator 10 which shows a stator gap distance 15.
We are not persuaded by Acquaviva and the examiner’s reasoning
urging combinability, and therefore the obviousness of the subject matter
of claim 1 on appeal, based on Acquaviva’s showings and the examiner’s
rationale of using the teaching of figure 3 of Acquaviva in the teachings
and showings of Heidelberg to make the respective gap differences in the
groups of electromagnets in Heidelberg different from the gaps between
the permanent magnets of the rotor for the purpose of reducing cogging
torque as discussed in Acquaviva. Just because the respective references
may be in the same field of endeavor as argued by the examiner does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to have utilized the respective teachings of the two references in
the same combination.
Appellants’ arguments at pages 9-12 of the principal brief on appeal
in effect generally point out the specific structural relationships among all
the parts in the Heidelberg arrangement including the grouping of a
selected number of electromagnets together with the same gap distance
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007