Appeal No. 2006-0859 Application No. 09/778,338 We cite the De Filippis reference to show that it is known in the art to change a motor’s characteristics by placing a gap between the permanent magnets such that the magnets each occupy 120 magnetic electrical degrees. We cite the Nakamura reference to show that it is known in the art that “[t]o decrease the eddy current loss of electrical steel sheets, the sheet thickness is reduced and the sheets are provided with an insulating film on the surface thereof.” We cite the Sakashita, Takahashi, and Acquaviva references to show that it is known in the art to change a motor’s characteristics by placing a gap between the permanent magnets (or by reducing the flux density between the poles). Conclusion In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 7 and 9-11; and we have sustained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-7 and 9-11. We designate that part of our affirmation (claims 7 and 9-11) which includes newly cited prior art as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (2005). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new grounds of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings as to the rejected claims: 14Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007