Appeal No. 95-0800
Application 07/840,276
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
In the present case, the examiner’s interpretation of
“layer” is broader than is reasonable. Therefore, we will not
sustain this rejection.
Obviousness over Jones in view of Romankiw
The examiner says that one of skill in the art would
have been motivated by Romankiw to make each of Jones’ coils
bifilar to provide a more balanced center tap. However, Jones’
center tap is between upper and lower windings, not within a
single winding.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, we are not convinced that the examiner
has established such a suggestion. Therefore, this rejection
will not be sustained.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007