Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8 through 10, and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerle in view of
Martin.
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Zimmerle in view of Martin, as applied
above, further in view of Webb.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 11), while the complete
statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the main and
reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12).
In the main brief (page 4), appellant indicates that claims
1, 2, 4, 7 through 10, 12, and 15 stand or fall together and that
claims 3 and 11 stand or fall together. Based upon this
statement, we focus our attention exclusively upon selected
claims 1 and 3, infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings, 2 3
2Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a slot having the desired
skew angle in a resulting stack of laminations. In light thereof,
we understand the second lamination, as does the first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007