Appeal No. 97-0894
Application 08/069,931
The examiner’s further reliance upon Anderson further
buttresses the same conclusion. This can be seen by study of
the embodiments in Figures 3 and 4 in Anderson which show the
magnetic sleeve 31 in Figure 3 and the magnetic sleeve 41 in
Figure 4. Magnetic sleeve 31 is of one-piece construction and
has one end formed as a coil bobbin. The coil 46 in the Figure 4
embodiment is molded within the magnetic sleeve 41. The discus-
sion in columns 2 through 4 of this reference indicates that the
magnetic sleeve/coil bobbin is formed by injection molding
techniques into which magnetic materials have been placed,
which are clearly magnetizable.
In view of this complete analysis of the three references
relied upon by the examiner, we agree with the examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter of independent claim 1 on
appeal would have been obvious to the artisan within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. To the extent broadly recited in dependent claim 3 on
appeal, the electrical terminals 56, 58 in Tomczak’s single-
piece molded plastic bobbin 52 would, as argued by the examiner,
are “mounted” in teh bobbin 52. Additional teachings as to
mounting elements apply to the threaded face 39 in the Figure 3
embodiment of Anderson in addition to the flange areas 30, 31 in
Figure 5 of Mueller which are stated at column 4, lines 7 and 8
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007