Appeal No. 2006-0452
Application No. 10/442,040
Turning to the rejection of claims 3-5 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we also sustain this rejection as set forth by
the examiner in the answer. The arguments presented as to these
claims at pages 4 and 5 of the brief essentially argue the same
features as argued with respect to independent claim 1 urging
patentability. Appellants do not argue against the combinability of Saunders and
Lienert within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and appellants do not argue against
what the examiner says Lienert teaches. Even the abstract of
Lienert specifically teaches that titanium dioxide is utilized as a
second or top coat of an enamelled wire used as a magnet wire. It is further noted that
independent claim 16 only recites one insulation layer. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3-5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Lastly, we also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in light of the combination of Saunders and Hake. As to this rejection,
the arguments at pages 5 and 6 of the brief do appear to indicate appellants are arguing
the absence of a proper motivation or modification of the two references within 35
U.S.C. § 103. In a manner consistent with the corona resistant enamelled coated
magnet wire of Saunders,
Hake teaches a corresponding plural layered corona resistant enamelled coated
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007