Appeal No. 2006-2872
Application No. 10/248,928
(answer, p. 3). The examiner’s finding (answer, p. 3) that such slots are formed
between adjacent magnetic pole teeth (sides 59, 60) is not supported by the Ponzio
patent, which illustrates each of the areas accommodating the coil turns 24 being
disposed between one of the sides 59 or 60 and the inner surface of annular stator
core 8.
In light of the above, Ponzio does not disclose each and every limitation of
claim 1 and thus does not anticipate the subject matter of claim 1. The rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2, 8 and 9 depending from claim 1 as being
anticipated by Ponzio is reversed.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 10 and 11, which depend from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Ponzio, rests in part on the examiner's finding that Ponzio
discloses a rotating electric machine comprising magnetic pole teeth defining “slots
formed between adjacent magnetic pole teeth.” The above discussed lack of
support in Ponzio for this finding fatally taints the examiner's conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claims 3, 4, 10 and 11 and Ponzio
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The rejection is
therefore reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013