Appeal No. 96-4104
Application 08/262,231
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the
Neuenschwander process to include forming spacing
means, stacking the lamina such that they are
spaced, annealing the stack, and then axially
compressing the annealed stack in order to realize
the advantages of “electrically ungraded” core
laminas as discussed in the Diederichs reference.
Similarly, one skilled in the art, having decided to
so modify the Neuenschwander method, would have
found it obvious to modify the Neuenschwander Figure
3 apparatus with an additional punch(es) to create
the spacing means structure of Diederichs. Having
provided such means for forming spacing means,
normal 180 degree rotation of alternate lamina as
disclosed would achieve the claimed function, i.e.,
spaced laminas.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in the appellant’s brief and the
examiner’s answer, we conclude that the rejection should not
be sustained.
In the first place, we disagree with the examiner that
“normal 180 degree rotation of alternate lamina [of
Neuenschwander, modified to provide spacing means as disclosed
by Diederichs at 13-17 and 23-27 [sic: 23, 24 and 26-28],]
would achieve the claimed function, i.e., spaced laminas”
(answer, page 4). As appellant points out on page 8 of the
brief, if the lamina shown in Diederichs Figure 1 were rotated
180E, the spacing means would nest and not separate the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007