Appeal No. 2006-1880
Application No. 10/064,363
argument unpersuasive. Appellants’ claim language requires “a
circular portion lying on one side of said circular core.” We
find such a circular portion in Scherzinger at Fig. 2, as part of
the flange 36. The back half of flange 36 is shown as “a
circular portion lying on one side of said circular core” as
required by claim 1. Nothing in claim 1 requires that the
“circular portion” correspond to the circular portion of
Appellants’ reference numeral 58; and nothing in the language of
claim 1 precludes the circular portion of Scherzinger.
Appellants further argue that claim 1 is patentable because
“each insulator segment [32] in Scherzinger et al only extends on
one side of the gap between the enlarged outer ends of the pole
teeth.” We disagree. The plurality of insulator segments in
Scherzinger form the “insulating bobbin” recited in claim 1.
Nothing in the language of claim 1 precludes a multi-segment
bobbin structure such as in Scherzinger.
Lastly, Appellants argue claim 1 is patentable because
Scherzinger fails to teach “how the teeth are wound.” We
disagree. We find the language of claim 1 directed to how the
teeth are wound is an intended use of the claimed bobbin
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007