Ex parte KOJIMA et al. - Page 7




                 Appeal No. 1999-2248                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/960,255                                                                                                             


                 directed to the cylindrical portion of the bobbin being                                                                                
                 connected to the iron core by abutting a distal end of the                                                                             
                 cylindrical portion, opposite the flange portion, to the iron                                                                          
                 core, and securing the distal end of the iron core using a                                                                             
                 butt connection  are not disclosed by the admitted prior art.                                                                          
                          Appellants also assert  that the admitted prior art7                                                                                     
                 cylindrical portion 4a of the plate 4 is secured to a thin                                                                             
                 wall 3b of the iron core at an intermediate section of the                                                                             
                 cylindrical wall portion 4a, and therefore the cylindrical                                                                             
                 portion is not disclosed to be secured to the iron core by its                                                                         
                 distal end.                                                                                                                            
                          Finally, Appellants point out  the advantages of their8                                                                         
                 invention over the admitted prior art and that the Examiner                                                                            
                 failed to consider the advantages of Appellants' invention.                                                                            
                          The Examiner  addresses Appellants' first argument by9                                                                                                       
                 referring to figure 21 and its showing the plate abutting the                                                                          




                          7Brief, page 5.                                                                                                               
                          8Brief, pages 6 and 8.                                                                                                        
                          9Examiner's Answer, page 4.                                                                                                   
                                                                           7                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007