Appeal No. 1997-2426
Application 08/087,849
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, Heilmann, and Dowdle, the Appellants argue on
pages 10 and 11 of the brief that there is no proper motivation to combine the teachings of Dowdle with
the teachings of Nakano and Heilmann. We note that the Appellants state that “spring types may not
merely be interchanged without regard to their environment and without regard to the stated problem
that each solves.” The Appellants point out that the Heilmann helical-type compression springs 24 and
25 do not unduly interfere with the loose mounting fit of the synthetic resin holders 20 and 21 and the
half cores 18 and 19. The Appellants additionally note that the two leaf springs 14 and 15 in the
Dowdle device are used to permit the sliding of the core assembly 11, from above, into channel 13 of
the frame 10. The Appellants conclude that it is impermissible to pick and choose various elements and
or concepts from several prior art references without regard to the environment of the elements and
without an express or implied suggestion in the prior art.
The Examiner argues on pages 3 and 4 of the answer that Nakano has basically all the structure
claimed with the exception of the leaf spring. Nakano has a notch and positioners 10, 11, 15 and 16;
and biasing member 6 or 7 in each case members 2 and 3 holding ferrite member 5. The Examiner
relies on Heilmann to teach separate biasing coil springs 24 and 25 to press the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007