Appeal No. 1997-2836
Application No. 08/106,009
reference laminations serve entirely different purposes, i.e.
to permanently receive a clamp or claiming bolt for holding
the laminations together in their final assembled
configuration (Radtke, Frank), or to engage a mechanism for
releasing lamination punchings from a magazine (Mittermaier).
Thus, we find no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to do
what appellant has done, namely, to form at least one notch
along an edge of a lamination so that the notch is positioned
to engage the chock of a die in a press fit bonding operation.
According to appellant, this particular arrangement eliminates
the need for precision cutting the entire edge of the
lamination, and thereby minimizes the amount of scrap
generated in cutting the lamination to fit between the chocks
of a die.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse all of the
rejections at issue. However, it is clear that the examiner
has not paid due regard to the scope of claims 17-21 and 24-25
which define a laminated assembly in product-by-process terms.
Accordingly, we remand the application to the examiner for an
appropriate independent consideration of each of those claims
bearing in mind that, as regards product-by-process claims,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007