Appeal No. 2001-0114
Application 09/240,712
OPINION
After a careful review, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 16 through 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue on page 4 of the brief that Grzeczkowski
fails to teach or suggest “wherein at least a portion of both of
the two winding supports is defined by a single structure” as
recited in claim 1. Appellants also argue on page 6 of the brief
that Grzeczkowski fails to teach or suggest “wherein at least a
portion of both of the two non-coaxial winding supports is
defined by a single structure” as recited in claim 16.
On page 3 of the final rejection, the Examiner admits that
Grzeczkowski does not teach a single structure for providing a
pair of winding supports as recited in claim 1. Similarly on
page 4 of the final rejection, the Examiner admits that
Grzeczkowski fails to teach that at least a portion of both of
the two winding supports is defined by a single structure as
recited in Appellants’ claim 16. The Examiner takes official
notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two
winding supports into a single structure as an obvious design
choice because it has been held by case law that forming one
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007