Appeal No. 2002-0755 Page 5
Application No. 08/999,803
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s obviousness
position stems from the fact that all of the claims on appeal are
drawn to a two step process including a first step of “heating
... wire windings in an oven to a temperature of about 110 to
about 200EC” followed by a trickling or dip coating method
whereas Thigpen is concerned with a low temperature coating
process wherein the coating of the coils begins at a temperature
of 140EF and is followed by curing at 170EF. See column 2, line
59 through column 3, line 49 of Thigpen. Thus, the examiner’s
obviousness analysis does not address, much less explain, how the
combination of the teachings of Thigpen and Berner would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to discard the low temperature
coating method of Thigpen with a 170EF curing temperature and
result in a method with an initial oven heating of the wire
windings to a temperature of 110 to about 200EC (230 to about
424EF) as called for in all of appellants’ claims.
The examiner simply has not furnished a convincing rationale
explaining how the combined teachings of Thigpen and Berner would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007