Appeal 2007-2869
Application 10/286,535
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is to a method and apparatus for inductively
heating a metal object having conductive windings (Specification 1:5-7). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An induction heating system comprising:
an induction heating assembly having a plurality of helically wound
coils and being adapted to produce a first magnetic field and a second
magnetic field to heat the work piece1 by induction, the first and second
magnetic fields being oriented in opposite directions; and
a wound core of an electrical machine disposed inboard of the
plurality of wound coils and having a coating disposed on windings of the
wound core to be cured by heat resulting from current induced by the first
and second magnetic fields.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Sakayanagi JP 63-0290145 Nov. 28, 1988
(as translated)
McGaffigan US 5,376,774 Dec. 27, 1994
Bleske US 5,786,575 Jul. 28, 1998
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-27, 42 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakayanagi and McGaffigan.
1 There is no antecedent basis for “the work piece” in the first paragraph of
claim 1. Unlike independent claim 36, claim 1 does not introduce “a work piece”
in the preamble. Additionally, claim 1 lacks a cross-reference between the "wound
core" and the "work piece." If further prosecution of this case is pursued, claim 1
should be amended to correct this antecedent basis problem and to clarify that the
"wound core" is the "work piece."
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013