Appeal No. 2001-0300
Application 08/819,527
little question about the results in the "wherein" clause.
However, we agree with appellant's argument (Br5) that there is a
question of whether the ring-wound coil in Steen can maintain
substantially constant uniformity of mean turn area because of
the gaps which necessarily result at the outside radius of the
coil. Nevertheless, we do not decide the case on this basis.
In our opinion, the obviousness issue turns on whether the
examiner has established the obviousness of the limitation, "a
diameter of said wire is defined by said constant pitch divided
by said number of passes in one direction, so that gaps between
adjacent turns of wire in any pass are substantially completely
filled in with turns of wire in other passes." We do not
interpret the reference to "gaps" in this limitation as implying
that the previously recited "pitch" purposely leaves gaps between
turns or that the pitch is chosen to produce a mechanically
stable coil: the gaps can be caused by variances in the winding
process (e.g., specification at 1, line 19). It does not appear
that claim 10 really captures what appellant regards as his
invention. However, we address claim 10 as just a broad claim.
We do not find any discussion in the examiner's rejection about
the relationship between the wire diameter, pitch, and number of
passes. The examiner's position appears to be just that multiple
passes in Steen would substantially fill in gaps (EA5), but this
does not address the claimed relationship. Accordingly, we
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007