Ex Parte Akutsu et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2006-2965                                                                             
                Application 10/320,628                                                                       
                      an insulator mounted to said sensor core so as to electrically insulate                
                said sensor core and said sensor coil;                                                       
                      a connector formed integrally with said insulator so as to be                          
                positioned on an outer circumferential side of said yoke; and                                
                      a sensor rotor rotatably disposed inside said yoke,                                    
                      wherein lead wire portions of said conductor wires constituting said                   
                excitation winding and said output winding are each joined to a terminal pin                 
                of said connector on a first surface side of said insulator so as to have a                  
                predetermined amount of slack, said predetermination based on differences                    
                in thermal expansion between the conductor wire and the insulator.                           


                      Appellants contend that claims 1 through 3 would not have been                         
                obvious over AAPA in combination with Ohshita.1  Particularly, Appellants                    
                contend that Ohshita does not fairly teach or suggest a predetermined                        
                amount of slack based on differences in thermal expansion between the                        
                conductor wire and the insulator, as recited in claim 1.   (Appeal Br. 9-10;                 
                Reply Br. 4).                                                                                
                                                                                                            
                      1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants                         
                submitted in the Appeal and Reply Briefs.  Arguments that Appellants could                   
                have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been                        
                waived.  See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).  See also In re                  
                Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                           

                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013