Appeal No. 2006-0859
Application No. 09/778,338
the optimal lamination thickness for one application would be the same for the other
application.” Id. We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Whether the thickness is
optimal is not relevant. The issue before us is whether the prior art would have
suggested the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no requirement that
the prior art also suggest the invention is optimal.
Additionally, the Yamamoto reference (not applied in the rejection of claim 1)
relied on by the Examiner to teach the “punched openings” of claim 2 describes such
armature laminations being 0.5 mm (Col. 3, lines 50-51). This is the center of the range
in the Neumann reference and further bolsters the Examiner’s position that the art
recognizes that such laminations can be used for permanent magnets or cores around
which coils are wound.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claim 2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 2. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants present no argument. Therefore,
claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1 and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007