Appeal 2007-2869
Application 10/286,535
coil assembly…of McGaffigan, in order to reduce external radiation of magnetic
flux to prevent damages” as taught by McGaffigan (Answer 4). Appellants
contend that the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness
“because the proposed modification changes the intended purpose of McGaffigan
and produces an inoperable result” (Appeal Br. 13). More specifically, Appellants
contend “if one were to place a wound element within the coil structure 30 of
McGaffigan to cure a varnish disposed thereon…the result would be a core having
no ferromagnetic properties” which would be inoperable in a motor or a generator
(Appeal Br. 14). We disagree with the Appellants’ narrow reading of McGaffigan.
McGaffigan discloses, in one embodiment, that the induction device is capable of
causing a ferromagnetic material to be heated to approximately its effective Curie
temperature, “if Curie temperature regulation is desired,” thus suggesting that other
operating temperatures are contemplated (Finding of Fact 8). Thus, heating a
ferromagnetic material to its effective Curie temperature is optional, and the
induction heating device of McGaffigan does not require such a result. As such, if
one were to place a wound element within the coil structure 30 of McGaffigan to
cure the coating disposed thereon, and one skilled in the art was aware that it is
desirable to maintain the ferromagnetic properties of the core, then the induction
device of McGaffigan is capable of heating the wound core to below its effective
Curie temperature to retain such ferromagnetic properties, while also gaining the
benefit of reducing external radiation, as taught by McGaffigan.
Appellants further contend that the combination of Sakayanagi and
McGaffigan “can not achieve the claimed wound core ‘to be cured by heat
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013