Appeal No. 2006-2872
Application No. 10/248,928
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ponzio 5,664,317 Sep. 9, 1997
The appellant seeks review of the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 8 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ponzio and claims 3, 4, 10 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ponzio.
Rather than reiterate in their entirety the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed November 25, 2005) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed September
16, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Ponzio patent and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the
following reasons, we cannot sustain either of the examiner’s rejections.
As emphasized by the appellant on page 3 of the brief, appellant’s claim 1
recites a method of winding the coils of a rotating electric machine comprising
magnetic pole teeth defining “slots formed between adjacent magnetic pole teeth.”
The examiner reads the magnetic pole teeth on the sides 59, 60 (Fig. 5) of
Ponzio’s stator pole and the areas in which coil turns 24 are received as the slots
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013