Appeal No. 2002-0629 Page 3
Application No. 08/236,378
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification2 and claims, the applied prior art, the declaration of Charles
E. Mullett (part of Paper No. 46) and the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. After reviewing all of the evidence of record, we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Claim 4, the sole independent claim on appeal, requires, inter alia, steps of
“obtaining said at least one solid magnetic core [i.e., a solid magnetic core having an
electrically insulating top surface and an electrically insulating bottom surface],”
obtaining electrically conductive base and top plates dimensioned to cover the bottom
surface and top surface, respectively, of the core and bonding the bottom surface and
top surface of the core directly to the conductive base and top plates, respectively.
Miller discloses a method of assembling a transformer device 10 comprising
gathering together a plurality of stacked laminations of metallic material, each
lamination being formed in either two or three pieces and clamping the laminations
together using a clamp 20 at each end of the lamination stack. Miller discloses that the
clamps may be made of metal which has some elasticity or resiliency across the width
of the openings 42 so that, with the application of transverse force, they can be fit over
2 We note that appellant submitted a substitute specification with the submission under 37 CFR
§ 1.129(a) (Paper No. 26). It is not apparent from our review of the record whether the examiner has
approved entry of this substitute specification. Upon return of this application to the Technology Center,
the examiner may wish to clarify this issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007