Appeal No. 97-0894
Application 08/069,931
Generally speaking, appellant has collectively considered
the teachings of Tomczak and Mueller together but considered the
teachings of Anderson separately. Thus, appellant has failed to
consider collectively the teachings of the three references
relied upon by the examiner. Moreover, appellant’s analytical
approach is to initially argue against the rejection of
comparatively detailed independent claim 7 first and then the
features of dependent claims 3 and 4, which depend from separate
independent claim 1. Dependent claim 10 is not argued.
Appellant’s arguments recognize that Tomczak’s coil body or
bobbin 52 is plastic and of one-piece construction. Contrary to
that which is argued by appellant, Tomczak’s device does not
contact physically the object to be measured, which is the vacuum
entering through nipple 50 for operation within the vacuum
chamber 24 to the left of Figure 2. Although the examiner
correctly recognizes that the molded plastic bobbin 52 is not
specifically taught to be injection molded, Tomczak is merely
silent as to the method of manufacturing this bobbin. However,
the enclosure 60, also a molded plastic element which encloses
the bobbin 52 in Figure 2, is taught at column 3, lines 25 to 27
to be injection-molded around the coil 54 and its bobbin 52.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007