Appeal No. 2005-2437
Application No. 09/682,642
appellant’s second end cap, is affixed by the threaded fasteners
at the bottom part of the motor to the casing to the left of the
motor that journals another shaft. Isozumi’s ribs 21a are
integral with rear bracket 21 (col. 4, lines 31-33; figure 1).
Isozumi would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, using the rear bracket ribs with Nagashima’s motor to
provide the disclosed benefit of avoiding displacement when
bracket fasteners are tightened (col. 4, lines 2-4).
Hence, we affirm the rejection of claim 19 and claim 15 that
stands or falls therewith.
Claim 23
The appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have combined Kakuda and Nagashima because Kakuda
relates to a totally different type of motor than that of
Nagashima (brief, page 6).
The appellant’s claim 23, which depends from claim 19,
requires that a brush carrier carries a number of brushes all of
which are confined in an area that encompasses not greater than
180° around the rotational axis of a rotor shaft. Such a
structure is disclosed by Kakuda (col. 3, lines 17-20). Kakuda’s
teaching that the motor is suitable for use in general industrial
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007