Appeal No. 2006-2752
Application No. 10/309,007
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2
through 4.
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1 through
4 as being unpatentable over combinations of Silvertown and
Ishida Proper?
With respect to representative claim 1, Appellants argue in
the Appeal Brief that the Silvertown reference does not disclose,
either taken alone or in combination with Ishida, the limitation
of an armature winding being constructed by connecting five
winding phase portions into an annular shape such that the
angular phase between them is approximately 72 degrees.
Now, the question before us is what Silvertown and Ishida
would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art? To answer
this question, we find the following facts:
1. At column 1, lines 14 through 20, Silvertown states the
following:
According to a further feature the invention resides in
a power supply system comprising an alternator having a
closed output winding divided into at least five phase
windings, an equal number of pairs of rectifiers for
producing a d.c. otuput and tappings on said winding for
producing a balanced multi phase alternating current output.
2. At column 4, lines 17 through 27, Ishida states the
following:
The stator coils 27 through 29 are previously wound on
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007