Appeal No. 2002-0635
Application No. 09/534,583
As noted by appellants in the brief and reply brief, the
electrical/magnetic properties of the electrical chokes taught in
Hosozawa are not detailed, to the extent of not including any
disclosure or discussion of the shape or configuration of the air
gap having any effect upon magnetic saturation or the elimination
of inflection points during the operation of the choke or any
device associated with it. Therefore, we are constrained to
reverse the rejection of claims 32 through 35, 38 and 40 as being
anticipated by Hosozawa.
Correspondingly, the rejection of claims 37 and 52 through
55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hosozawa alone must also be
reversed.
As to the rejection of independent claim 22 in view of
appellants’ admitted prior art Fig. 2 in view of Hosozawa under
35 U.S.C. § 103, this rejection must be reversed because the
appellants’ admitted prior art Fig. 2 does not cure the
deficiencies with respect to Hosozawa. The same must be
concluded with respect to the additional reliance on Saitoh and
Cameron as to additional dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007