Appeal No. 2006-0452
Application No. 10/442,040
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Turning to the additional rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 argued by appellants at page 4 of the brief,
appellants merely assert that claim 15 recites that the wire is
part of the converter-supplied motor. The examiner correctly
points out that the initial lines at column 1 indicates that the
magnet wire of Saunders is known to be used in the windings
associated with electrical motors. Appellants do not clarify nor
does the specification clarify what a “converter-supplied” motor
is to comprise in conventional terminology. In any event, the
examiner has correctly argued at pages 10 and 11 of the answer that because of the
term “part of” in claim 15, the manner of intended use of the claimed wire is ordinarily
considered not a patentable distinction for a structure claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
102. We note again that no arguments are presented in the brief
as to dependent claims 2, 6, 7 and 9-12 also rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102. As such, the rejection of these claims is
sustained as well.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007