Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
and adds “a plurality of switching assemblies.....” and
additional connections for “said conductors” in claim 1.
Appellants argue that the claimed integrated conductor is not
met by the cited references. We have found that the
integrated conductor is met by Ida in our analysis of claim 1.
Appellants further argue “Accordingly, since the reference
does not teach connecting the terminals of an integrated
conductor to a switching assembly, Appellants submit that
claim 4 would not have been obvious over the cited
references.” (Brief-page 14.) The Examiner cites Takaishi
for the combination of a switching assembly with a voltage
transformer in an ignition coil for an internal combustion
engine. Appellants do not dispute this combination, and in
fact disclose such a combination as prior art at page 2, lines
10-18 of their specification.
Since Ida connects all its components via an integrated
conductor, and since Ida has no switching assemblies, clearly
Ida alone cannot teach the claim 4 connections. However, once
Takaishi is combined with Ida, Ida would then have additional
components, i.e., switching assemblies, to be connected. And,
8-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007