Appeal No. 1996-3386
Application No. 08/136,123
(see Answer, page 5). The examiner asserts (Answer, page 6)
that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the transducer having the same
length inner and outer projections as shown by Sato
et al '988 with the substrate of the transducer
having longer ridge-like projections on the sides of
short projections as disclosed in Kendall '244 since
it would have provided additional electrical
isolation between the various coil connections on
the substrate.
Assuming that Kendall's studs 9 are short projections,
Kendall shows two rows of such short projections adjacent one
another. Thus, contrary to the examiner's assertions, Kendall
does not disclose short projections between long projections.
Further, Kendall teaches (column 4, lines 21-24, 33-34, and
53-56) depositing the core material between two rows of short
projections, or rather the helix of Kendall is formed between
two rows of short projections. The "longer ridge-like
projections (5)" referenced by the examiner are merely
sidewalls, not involved in forming the helix, and consequently
do not serve the same function as Sato's or appellants' long
projections. On the other hand, each long projection of Sato
is integral to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007