Appeal 2006-2965
Application 10/320,628
an insulator mounted to said sensor core so as to electrically insulate
said sensor core and said sensor coil;
a connector formed integrally with said insulator so as to be
positioned on an outer circumferential side of said yoke; and
a sensor rotor rotatably disposed inside said yoke,
wherein lead wire portions of said conductor wires constituting said
excitation winding and said output winding are each joined to a terminal pin
of said connector on a first surface side of said insulator so as to have a
predetermined amount of slack, said predetermination based on differences
in thermal expansion between the conductor wire and the insulator.
Appellants contend that claims 1 through 3 would not have been
obvious over AAPA in combination with Ohshita.1 Particularly, Appellants
contend that Ohshita does not fairly teach or suggest a predetermined
amount of slack based on differences in thermal expansion between the
conductor wire and the insulator, as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 4).
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants
submitted in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been
waived. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013