Appeal No. 1998-1192
Application 08/456,093
rendered July 18, 2000 (Paper No. 26) to the extent that we
sustained the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections of
claims 13 through 19, 41 through 45, 60 and 61.
The request focuses on independent claim 13 (from which
claims 14 through 19 depend), independent 41 (from which
claims 42 through 45 depend) and independent 60 (from which
claim 61 depends).
Claim 13 recites a stator winding machine comprising,
inter alia, “a roller for providing relative motion between
said winding station and a first stator support rotated into
position adjacent said winding station.” In our decision, we
found that this roller limitation “reads on the Santandrea
‘228 roller 47 which provides relative motion between the
winding station and a first stator support rotated into
position adjacent said winding station” (page 11). In their
request for rehearing (see page 2), the appellants contend
that we failed to properly interpret the roller limitation in
light of their disclosure which describes roller 182 as
supporting a winding head for movement along a base relative
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007