Appeal No. 2003-1188
Application No. 09/987,374
connectors of Baldwin for the purpose of reducing the unequal voltages that may occur
in the winding and, therefore, improving the efficiency of the machine [answer, pages 3-
4].
Appellants argue that neither Aoki nor Baldwin teaches the claim recitation that
the coil portions are formed by simultaneously winding wires. Appellants assert that the
coil portions of the applied prior art are wound sequentially and not simultaneously.
Appellants also argue that the examiner has not set forth a motivation for modifying the
cited references. Appellants dispute the examiner’s position that the recitation of
“simultaneously winding” is not entitled to patentable weight because it is a “product-by
process” limitation of a structural component [brief, pages 5-7].
The examiner responds that Aoki discloses the structural limitations of the end
product claimed by appellants. The examiner asserts that there is no structural
difference between an armature which has the coils formed simultaneously and an
armature having the coils formed sequentially. The examiner also asserts that Baldwin
does teach the coil portions being formed simultaneously. With respect to the
motivation to combine the references, the examiner notes that the equalizing
connectors of Baldwin are disclosed to solve the problems suffered by the Aoki
armature [answer, pages 6-10].
Appellants respond that the examiner has provided no rationale as to how or why
the coil formed by simultaneously winding wires is the same as, or similar to, any of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007