Appeal No. 2002-0558 Page 7
Application No. 09/289,076
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require a winding having some
resistance.
It is uncontested that Meyer's device includes a coil, which is a winding.
Specifically, "[a] wound, non-ferrous toroidal coil assembly 34 is positioned such that
the ground conductor 30 passes directly through the center of the toroidal coil, such
that the coil 34 links all of the magnetic flux generated by the charging current 32
passing through the conductor 30." Col. 6, ll. 8-13 (emphasis added).
We find that the reference's wound coil 34 inherently features a resistance. “To
establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d
743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Here,
Kiko evidences that resistance is necessarily present in coils and windings.
Specifically, the reference discloses that a "winding 14d," col. 2, ll. 22-23, features a
"series resistance of winding 14d. . . ." Col. 4, l. 14. See also Robert L. Shrader,
Electronic Communication 80 (1985) (evidencing that "resistance exists in the[]
windings" of a transformer) (copy attached); Francis Weston Sears et al., University
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007