Appeal No. 1997-2836
Application No. 08/106,009
light of the opposing positions advanced on appeal, we agree
with appellant that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejections applied by the
examiner.
Initially, we note that claims 17-21 and 24-25 are in a
ˇproduct-by-process˘ format, but have not been separately
addressed by the examiner. Rather, the examiner has grouped
these claims with the method claims in his outstanding
rejections. The examiner’s fundamental position is that it
would have been obvious within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to
apply the current chock and die ˇpress fit bonding˘ procedure
in manufacturing the laminated assemblies of Radtke, Frank and
Mittermaier and, in so doing, one of ordinary skill in the art
would ˇof necessity˘ recognize that the chocks should engage
the laminations at the notched regions.
We disagree with the examiner essentially for the reasons
stated in appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief. In appellant’s
claimed method, the position of the lamination notches is
specifically associated with the chocks of a die so that the
notches engage a chock. As we see it, the notches in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007