Appeal No. 98-0816
Application 08/286,287
(see Answer, pages 18 to 19) that the combination of Hishida, Silvaggio, and Girault would have fairly
suggested the invention of claims 23 and 25 on appeal. However, because we agree with appellants
(see Brief, pages 9 to 47 and 50 to 52; Reply Brief, pages 4 to 14; Supplemental Reply Brief, pages 3
to 5; and Second Supplemental Reply Brief, pages 2 to 4) that the applied prior art fails to teach or
suggest the recited claims on appeal, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 17, 26, 27, 29, 30,
and 33 to 36 on appeal. For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we will reverse the decisions of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 17, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 33 to 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 23 and 25 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Turning first to the rejection of claims 23 and 25 under § 103, we find that claims 23 and 25 on
appeal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in
light of the collective teachings of Hishida, Silvaggio, and Girault.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, pages 18 to 19) that the ordinarily skilled artisan looking
at the combined teachings and suggestions of Hishida, Silvaggio, and Girault would have modified the
stator assembly including coils as taught by Hishida by encapsulating them with an electrically insulative
overmold such as taught by Silvaggio and Girault. We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 19) that
it would have been obvious in light of the teachings of Silvaggio and Girault to provide motor windings
with protective overmolds as claimed in order to insulate and protect the windings during assembly
and/or operation of the motor. We also agree with the examiner that the resultant overmold would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007