Appeal No. 2005-2042 Page 7
Application No. 09/946,298
a space in between the Halbach array and the stator;
the space being radially symmetrical when the axis of rotation is collinear
with the axis of equilibrium and being asymmetrical when the axis of
rotation is displaced from the axis of equilibrium; and
rotation of the Halbach array relative to the lap windings inducing a net
current in said conductive loops and in said lap windings and generating a
restorative force acting on the rotor when the spacing is asymmetrical,
tending to restore the axis of rotation to collinearity with the axis of
equilibrium.
b. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004) The question of
obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e]
prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59
USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614,
1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). "For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the [appellant's] argument shall
specify the errors in the rejection and, if appropriate, the specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior art relied on in the rejection, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007