Appeal No. 2003-1250
Application No. 09/388,582
We agree with the examiner. When claim 1 is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we find that it reads directly on
Figure 1 of Haldeman.
Appellants argue (brief, page 6) that “[t]he interior core
3, however, is only temporarily present during assembly, and is
subsequently removed, and in fact according to the teachings of
the Haldeman reference, it is undesirable to keep the tube 3 in
place.” In response, the examiner states (answer, page 5) that
“Haldeman’s Fig. 1 is disclosed as an example of Haldeman’s prior
art (col. 1, lines 35-42) and as such constitutes a finished
product.” According to Haldeman (column 2, lines 44 and 45),
“FIG. 1 illustrates the typical construction of Litz cable 1 with
a nylon tube 3.” The referenced portion of Haldeman (column 1,
lines 35 through 42) states that water is pumped through the
nylon tube 3. If water is pumped through the tube, then it is a
finished product, and the tube is “permanently” disposed as set
forth in claim 1.
Appellants arguments (brief, page 7) concerning high
voltages, de-ionized water and non-processed water are not
commensurate in scope with the invention set forth in claim 1.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is
sustained based upon the conventional cooling tube and Litz cable
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007