Appeal No. 2005-0618 Page 5
Application No. 09/760,017
the electromotive drive 10 in which the magnet wheel 34a mounted on spacing bushing
33 is pressed against commutator 15 by means of a safety ring 40 mounted on drive
shaft 14.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 3-5; reply brief, p. 2) that Schechinger does not
disclose a commutator having a magnetic ring attached to an outer surface of the
commutator, the outer surface being opposite to the inner surface of the commutator
that is mounted on the shaft as recited in claim 1. The appellants point out that Figure 2
of Schechinger does not disclose that the magnetic wheel 34a is attached on an outer
surface of a commutator 15 as required by claim 1. In Schechinger, the inner surface of
the commutator 15 is mounted on the shaft 14, and nothing is illustrated or described as
being attached to the opposing outer surface of the commutator 15. The magnetic
wheel 34a of Schechinger is not attached on the outer surface of the commutator 15,
nor does the magnetic ring 34a even contact the outer surface of the commutator 15.
Rather, the magnetic wheel 34a is pressed against a side of the commutator 15, so that
the commutator 15 can act as a stop.
The examiner's response to this argument (answer, p. 5) is that claim 1 does not
structurally define the body of the commutator as a single, unitarily formed body.
Therefore, the claimed commutator is readable on a commutator unit formed by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007