Appeal No. 1998-1408 Page 21
Application No. 08/569,529
Claim 15 depends on claim 1 and recites the following
additional limitations. The first said elongated
conductors printed on the sheet are printed on one
portion of the sheet. Other elongated conductors are
printed on another portion of the same sheet. These
other conductors printed on the sheet are
substantially parallel to the first said conductors
printed on the sheet. The one portion of the
flexible sheet is contoured around a top and sides of
one leg of the core. The other portion of the
flexible sheet is contoured around a top and sides of
an opposite leg of the core. The other conductors
printed on the sheet are respectively surface bonded
to the other conductors of the printed circuit board
to form another series of windings around the core.
This key feature is not taught or even suggested by
Sato. Instead, Sato discloses two separate belts
containing the leads 4. Likewise, Dirks discloses two
separate bridges. See for example Figure 7. Layton
et al. add nothing in this regard. (Appeal Br. at
7.)
The examiner’s reply follows.
Printing conductors on one belt as opposed to two
separate belts is an obvious matter of design choice.
For example, belts 3 of Saito could be made in one
piece or one belt but it would appear that the
connections at 4, 5 would be more cumbersome because
handling one long belt and making connections on
opposite legs of core 1 would be more difficult.
(Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007