Appeal No. 2001-0716
Application No. 08/813,132
(CCPA 1977). Further, from the disclosure of House, it is our
view that any conclusions as to the distance from the coils to
the air gap would be based purely on unwarranted speculation,
since, as alluded to by Appellants (Brief, page 9), House has no
concern with keeping the coils away from the air gap at a certain
distance or, for that matter, any distance at all.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since
all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art House and Estrov references,
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2 and 3 dependent thereon,
is not sustained.
-7–7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007