Appeal 2006-2965
Application 10/320,628
Appellants’ claim limitation of forming a predetermined amount of slack
based on the difference in thermal expansion between the conductor wire
and the insulator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
recognized that the amount of slack resulting upon removing the rod from
the windings is dependent upon the thickness of the selected rod previously
inserted in the windings. Therefore, the ordinary skilled artisan would have
readily recognized that depending on the desired difference in thermal
expansion that needs to be compensated for, the longitudinal rod is selected
with the necessary thickness and inserted in the windings to consequently
result in the desired slack upon removing the rod from the windings. After
considering the entire record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err
in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of AAPA and Ohshita. We also
find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent claims 2 and 3 over
the combination of AAPA and Ohshita.2
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand
or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013