Appeal No. 1999-1134
Serial No. 08/334,465
milled into end windings and not rotor body radial ducts as
claimed. Furthermore, the discussion of rotor winding cooling
problems presented in columns 1 and 2 of Kaminski is directed
to coolant flow through a path in a longitudinal duct (or
ducts) of a conductor and not the radially adjacent openings
in the adjacent stacked turns of the claimed invention.
Therefore, as these prior art references fail to teach a
need for further cooling in stacked rotor turns already having
coolant flow in both the slots and openings of adjacent
stacked turns, the Examiner has not established why one having
ordinary skill in this art would have been led to add
protuberances to provide additional cooling. Thus, the
Examiner has failed to
establish why one having ordinary skill in this art would have
been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or
suggestions found in the prior art, or by implications
contained in such teachings or suggestions.
CONCLUSION
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007