Appeal No. 2005-0648
Application No. 09/824,980
On pages 3-4 of the brief, the appellants indicate that
certain claims are grouped separately from the others. We will
individually consider these separately grouped claims to the
extent that they also have been separately argued. See In re
Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Also see Ex Parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991); current regulation 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); and former regulation 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We will sustain each of these rejections for the reasons
well stated by the examiner in his answer. We add the following
comments for emphasis and completeness.
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-5 AND 8 OVER KLIMAN, THE ADMITTED PRIOR
ART AND NISHIYAMA
As correctly observed by the examiner, Kliman discloses a
switched reluctance motor for use in an automotive power steering
system (e.g., see the abstract and lines 36-37 of column 2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007