Appeal No. 2003-1188
Application No. 09/987,374
coils disclosed by the prior art. Appellants also dispute the examiner’s assertion that
Baldwin teaches coil portions being formed simultaneously [reply brief].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. Although we agree with appellants that there is no disclosure
within either of the prior art references that the coil portions are formed simultaneously,
we also agree with the examiner that the limitation within claim 1 that the coil portions
are formed by simultaneously winding wires a plurality of turns around a pair of slots
does not structurally differentiate the coil structure of claim 1 from the coil structure of
Aoki. The example shown in appellants’ Figures 1 and 2 shows a lap winding technique
using four different nozzles which simultaneously form four coils at the same time. It is
clear from these figures and the corresponding description that the four coils 108-111
are separate and distinct and do not interfere with each other. Since these four coils do
not interfere with each other, the structural result from placing these four coils
simultaneously or sequentially is the same. In other words, the product that results from
placing these coils simultaneously is the same as the product that results from placing
these coils sequentially because they are separate and distinct. The examiner is
correct that Aoki teaches an armature which uses lap winding of the type recited in
claim 1. The examiner is also correct that Baldwin teaches equalizing connectors for
solving the exact problem that the armature of Aoki would otherwise suffer. Appellants
have offered no evidence that the structural properties resulting from forming the coils
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007