Appeal No. 2005-0478 Page 7
Application No. 10/064,363
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants argue at page 2 of the brief
that figure 2 of Uchida fails to teach that the “insulator portions have a greater
thickness than the insulating bobbin leg portions.” We agree. We have reviewed
the Uchida reference and find that it does not recite the “greater thickness” as
argued in the rejection at page 5 of the answer. Further, we find that the
Examiner’s reliance on figure 4b at page 7 of the answer is misplaced as the
accompanying detailed description gives no hint as to what thickness is being
represented in figure 4b.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Rejection of Claims 1 and 4 Under 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
We make the following new grounds of rejection using our authority under
37 CFR § 41.50(b).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being clearly
anticipated by figures 2 and 3 of Scherzinger.
Appellants have admitted that Scherzinger anticipates at least claim 1.4
We have reviewed Scherzinger and find that it also teaches the subject matter of
claim 4 as the insulator portions (36) in figure 2 have a thickness greater than the
bobbin leg portions (40).
4 Appellants’ representative admitted at the Oral Hearing held at the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences on May 5, 2005, that the Scherzinger patent anticipates at least some of the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007