Appeal 2007-2452
Application 10/421,761
1 The Appellants argue that the purpose of the protruding portion (18) of
2 Ichiryu’s bobbin frame (16) is to ensure that the opposed end portions of the
3 plunger guide and the inner yoke are sufficiently strong, and that Ichiryu does not
4 disclose that the protruding portion magnetically separates the plunger guide and
5 the inner yoke (Reply Br. 5). What Ichiryu uses to provide the strength referred to
6 by the Appellants is a reinforcing nonmagnetic ring (Ichiryu, col. 2, ll. 29-33; col.
7 3, ll. 18-21; col. 5, ll. 61-67). Ichiryu’s disclosures that the reinforcing ring is
8 nonmagnetic and that the protruding portion is polymeric (which is nonmagnetic)
9 (Ichiryu, col. 4, ll. 18-26) indicate that the region between the plunger guide and
10 the inner yoke is magnetically insulating. Thus, those disclosures support the
11 Examiner’s above-discussed reasoning that the polepieces of Ichiryu’s solenoid are
12 the plunger guide and the inner yoke.
13 Because the Examiner finds that Ichiryu’s plunger guide functions as a core
14 and the Examiner provides a plausible supporting explanation, and the Appellants
15 provide no substantive argument to the contrary, we accept the Examiner’s finding
16 as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3, 140 USPQ 235, 236 n.3
17 (CCPA 1964).
18 The Appellants argue that Bircann ‘875 discloses one nonmagnetic bearing
19 and does not suggest a pair of nonmagnetic bearings (Br. 11). Bircann ‘875 is
20 relied upon by the Examiner for a suggestion to make Ichiryu’s bearings
21 nonmagnetic (Ans. 3), not for a disclosure of a pair of bearings.
22 The Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art
23 that bearing interaction with a coil is a problem (Br. 12). The problem, as
24 indicated in Bircann ‘875, is interaction between the bearing and the armature
25 (plunger) (Bircann ‘875, col. 3, ll. 49-54). Bircann ‘875 would have led one of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013