Appeal No. 2005-0235 2
Application No. 09/969,291
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 from all the claims on appeal and
decide the propriety of the examiner’s rejection based on this claim alone consistent with
37 CFR § 1.192(c))(7) (2003), now 37 CFR § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)(2004). See also In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(“If the brief fails
to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003), now 37 CFR § 41.37
(c)(1)(vii)(2004)] the Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims
subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to
decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected representative claim.”).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A multilayer insulation-coated electric conductor comprising a conductor with a plurality
of layers of insulation-coating provided thereon and configured in a shape so as to form
one portion of a coil and having ends adapted to attach to other electric conductors with
welded joints so as to form a further extended coil section, wherein at least one layer of the
plurality of layers of the coated metal conductor is composed of at least one resin selected
from the group consisting of a polyimide resin, a polyesterimide resin, and an
H-class polyester resin.
PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Tatematsu et al. (Tatematsu) 5,965,263 Oct. 12, 1999
The appellant’s admission at pages 2 through 4 of the specification (hereinafter
referred to as “admitted prior art”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007