Appeal No. 2005-2042 Page 6
Application No. 09/946,298
Moreover, Bichler (US 5,155,402) . . . show[s] more explicitly that it is well
known in the art that magnets 21 function with windings 19 to induce a flux
between the rotor and the stator for levitating purposes in electrodynamic
machines (see figure 2 & abstract; column 1, lines 51 - 54; column 4, lines
55 - 59).
(Examiner's Answer at 6-9.) The appellant alleges, "Since the Primary Post reference,
the Secondary Lund reference, and the Tertiary Bichler reference all fail to show the
structural elements identified above, a combination of the primary, secondary, and
tertiary references could not show the claimed invention." (Appeal Br. at 13.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claim would have been obvious.
a. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, claim 11 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
An apparatus for restoring a rotor to an equilibrium position having an axis
of rotational equilibrium comprising:
. . .
the stator including conductive loops and lap windings, wherein said lap
windings are interleaved with said conductive loops;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007