Appeal No. 2001-0114
Application 09/240,712
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Upon our view of the evidence, we find that the record fails
to show any suggestion to lead one of ordinary skill in the art
to make the modification as proposed by the Examiner. In
particular, we note that the Examiner’s assertion that this
modification is a matter of design choice is only a conclusionary
statement not based on genuine issue of material fact. In
particular, we note that the claims all require a single
structure for providing a pair of winding supports. This
structure corresponds to elements 155 and 150 shown in figure 1.
Furthermore, we note that this structure is not a nonfunctional
limitation but indeed has a function. Appellants’ specification
discloses on pages 6 and 7 that the end plates 145 and 150 of the
two winding supports 105 and 110 provide the function of
maintaining the separation between the elements in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007