Appeal No. 2003-1250
Application No. 09/388,582
teachings of Haldeman. The anticipation rejection of claims 2
and 11 is likewise sustained because appellants have chosen
(brief, page 4) to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
The anticipation rejection of claim 13 is reversed because
the examiner’s conclusion (answer, page 5) that “[t]he term
gradient does not confer any definite structural attribute to the
coil” is in error, and because the appellants have correctly
concluded (brief, page 8) that Haldeman is not directed to such a
coil.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2 and 11 is reversed
because the examiner has not presented any evidence to buttress
his opinion (answer, page 4) that the cooling tubes disclosed by
the two applied references “were art-recognized equivalents at
the time the invention was made . . . . ” In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 11 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as to claims 1, 2 and 11,
and is reversed as to claim 13. The decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-
in-part.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007