Appeal 2007-2869
Application 10/286,535
2. Claims 6 and 36-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan, and Bleske.
ISSUES
Appellants contend (1) “[t]he proposed modification of McGaffigan renders
the McGaffigan device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and, in turn,
produces an inoperable result” (Appeal Br. 12); and (2) the Examiner fails “to
present objective evidence to support the obviousness rejection and has, instead,
relied on impermissible hindsight reconstruction to reject the claimed subject
matter” (Appeal Br. 13). The Examiner found that “Sakayanagi shows an
induction heating assembly 5 with a helically wound induction heating coil 51 for
heating a wound core 1 with wire 2 having a coating 21 to cure the wire coating 21
by induction heating” (Answer 3-4) and “McGaffigan shows an induction heating
system having a plurality of helically wound coils…wherein the first electric
current flows through the first coil in a first direction and the second electric
current flows through the second coil in a second direction opposite the first
direction” (Answer 4). The Examiner held that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use the induction heating device as taught by
McGaffigan in the system of Sakayangi “in order to reduce external radiation of
magnetic flux.” Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013