Appeal No. 2000-0650
Application No. 08/599,668
lubricant coating is applied to the wire to produce a low
coefficient of friction so that the wire is not damaged during
winding and mounting, and this lubricant is not capable of
releasing substances that can damage the refrigeration system or
the compressor (Brief, page 3). Appellants state that “all of
the claims can be considered as a single group” (Brief, page 4).
We construe this statement as meaning that the claims stand or
fall together with independent claim 22. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997). A copy of illustrative independent claim 22
is attached as an Appendix to this decision.
In addition to the admitted prior art listed on pages 3-4 of
the Answer and appellants’ admission of prior art on page 1 of
the specification, the examiner has relied upon the following
references as evidence of obviousness:
Saunders et al. (Saunders) 4,420,536 Dec. 13, 1983
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 5,420,185 May 30, 1995
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Saunders in view of Watanabe and appellants’
admission (Answer, page 4).1 We reverse this rejection for the
reasons stated below.
1 The examiner has withdrawn the final rejections based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs (Answer, page 2).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007