Appeal No. 2002-1234
Application No. 09/546,466
In response to the anticipation rejection, appellants argue (brief, page 6) that:
In the present case, the recited function of claim 15, “transferring heat from
the electrical coil to the E-block,” is carried out by the heat transfer plate 170 which
extends in a contacting, planar fashion adjacent an actuator coil. The plate includes
an upstanding portion 172 that pressingly engages the E-block 174, and leg members
186 which extend from the portion 172 between an inner coil portion 182 and an
outer coil portion 184 to efficiently draw heat from the interior of the coil. The heat
transfer plate 170 is formed from a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum.
See FIGS. 3-4 and the discussion at page 7, line 14 to page 9, line 11 . . . .
Appellants admit (brief, page 8) that the structure of Sendoda appears to carry out the
claimed function of “transferring heat from the electrical coil to the E-block,” but nevertheless
conclude that “the disclosed plate 1 [used by Sendoda] fails to meet the requirements of a structural
equivalent . . . .” Appellants argue (brief, page 9) that:
In the present case, the plate 1 of Sentoda [sic, Sendoda] apparently fails to
disclose, teach or suggest dividing the coil into inner and outer portions and inserting
leg members 186 therebetween down into the coil and the Examiner has failed [to]
assert otherwise. Thus, while heat is conducted from the coil 55, it is done so in a
substantially different way; unlike the claimed invention where heat internal to the
coil is drawn out by the leg members, the plate 1 simply lies in a plane adjacent the
top (and bottom) of the coil 55. Heat internal to the coil is therefore radiated
inwardly or outwardly and must either pass through the ambient air or through
adjacent coil turns in order to reach the plate. The absence of the leg portions
prevents the plate 1 of Sentoda [sic, Sendoda] from being considered an equivalent
under § 112, ¶6.
Although the claims in the subject application and the patent may expire on the same future
date, the examiner explains (answer, page 7) that the double patenting rejection “will in fact serve to
‘prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees’ . . . .” In response to appellants’ arguments
concerning the prior art teachings of Sendoda, the examiner states (answer, page 6) that the means 1
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007