Ex parte Sawazaki et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 1999

08206669 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 7, 1994.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NOBUYUKI SAWAZAKI, TAKAFUMI NARISHIGE, SHIGEMI
MURATA, MITSURU KOIWA and YUTAKA OHASHI
__________
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,6691
___________
HEARD: October 20, 1999
___________
Before THOMAS, RUGGIERO and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 through 23. Claims 6
through 10, 13 and 15 through 19 were indicated as allowable
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-2-
in the Examiner’s Answer at page 6. Thus, claims 1 through 5,
11, 12, 14 and 20 through 23 remain under appeal.
The invention relates to an ignition device for an internal
combustion engine. Electrical connections among coil
windings, connectors, switching assemblies and integrated
circuits are made using integrated conductors instead of a
wire harness.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An ignition coil for an internal combustion engine,
comprising:
a plurality of voltage transforming sections, each voltage
transforming section including
a plurality of windings having one of an end portion and a
terminal,
at least one bobbin for aligning said windings, and
a plurality of iron cores for magnetically coupling said
plurality of windings;
a plurality of conductors connected to said one of the winding
ends and terminals of said plurality of voltage transforming
sections; and
a resin part for integrating said plurality of conductors as a
first integrated conductor.
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-3-
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Ida et al. (Ida) 5,109,209Apr. 28, 1992
Takaishi et al. (Takaishi)5,186,154Feb. 16, 1993

Claims 1 through 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 through 23 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Takaishi in view of Ida.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief and
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated on page
1 of the reply brief that claims 1 through 3 and 20 through 22
stand or fall together as a group, and claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 14
and 23 stand or fall together as a group.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-4-
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue:
In addition to the express grounds of rejection
contained in the Final Office Action, the Examiner
also casually stated that the use of integrated
conductors may be implicitly suggested in the
drawings of Takaishi and Ida. (Final Office Action,
page 3, line 10). However, Appellants are unsure
how the drawings of either cited reference
explicitly or implicitly teach the integrated
conductor recited in claim 1.
........Nevertheless, Appellants assume that the
Examiner is referring to Figs. 13a and 13b of Ida to
support his position. However, even assuming
arguendo that Figs. 13a and 13b disclose an
integrated conductor, such conductor does not
disclose or teach the integrated conductor recited
in claim 1 based on the reasons below.

........Specifically, as shown in Figs. 13a and 13b
of the reference, the terminal pins 251-254,
terminal plates 261-264, and connecting forks 28
must be manually pressed into the terminal base 30.
Accordingly, assembling such device via an automated
process is difficult, if not impossible.

........On the other hand, with respect to the
present invention, a metal sheet is pressed to form
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-5-
a conductor 21, and the conductor 21 is insert-
molded in a resin. (See Fig. 2A). .....Therefore,
the conductors of the claimed invention can be
produced quickly and inexpensively via an automation
process. (Brief-pages 12 and 13.)
This argument fails at the outset because it is not based on
any limitation appearing in the claims. Thus, the
applicability of automation is immaterial. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 ((CCPA 1982).
In Appellants’ argument recited supra, they have assumed
arguendo that Ida’s Figures 13a and 13b disclose an integrated
conductor, and that is the real question. What is an
integrated conductor? At oral hearing, Appellants stated that
an integrated conductor is a well known term of art but could
provide no evidentiary definition. In Appellants’
specification, it states:
The present invention has been devised to overcome
the above-described problems, and its object is to
obtain a device which makes it possible to disuse
the [wiring] harness for interconnecting the devices
of an ignition system, facilitates assembly, has
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-6-
high reliability of electrical connections, and is
compact and inexpensive. (Page 2, lines 20-25.)
The integrated conductors in accordance with the
present invention integrate the intricate
connections of the ignition device, and are made
compact and lightweight, so that they are easy to
handle and can be readily incorporated into the
case. Since the wire harness is made unnecessary,
erroneous connections are not encountered. (Page 3,
lines 13-17.)
Looking at Figures 13a and 13b of Ida we see a device which
makes it possible to disuse a wiring harness for
interconnecting devices in an ignition system. Pushing the
integrated forks 28 over component wires (e.g. coil wire 71 in
Figure 12) facilitates assembly with a high reliability of
making intricate electrical connections. We find that the
device depicted in Figures 13a and 13b of Ida is an integrated
conductor as described in Appellants’ specification. Although
the material used for terminal base 30 in figure 13a is not
specifically recited in Ida or questioned by Appellants, we
find that a resin would have been the obvious choice. This
finding is based on the fact that terminal base 30 must be of
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-7-
an insulating material, and most of the apparatus of Ida is
formed of an insulating resin. For example compartments 34,
35 and 36 of the coil case are potted with a resin and core
covers 111 and 112 are molded of a relatively flexible resin.
Thus, we find that the “resin part for integrating said
plurality of conductors as a first integrated conductor”
recited in claim 1 is met by Ida.
Claim 1 recites that the conductors of the integrated
conductor are “connected to said one of the winding ends and
terminals of said plurality of voltage transforming sections”.
This is met by Ida in that the integrated conductor of Figure
13a connects coil wires 71 to terminal pins 25.
Although the Examiner discussed Takaishi with respect to the
transformer windings and bobbins, these are not challenged by
Appellants and are considered cumulative to those in Ida, at
least for the analysis of claim 1.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and thereby claims 2, 3 and 20 through
22 which stand or fall therewith.
Claim 4 is representative of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 23,
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-8-
and adds “a plurality of switching assemblies.....” and
additional connections for “said conductors” in claim 1.
Appellants argue that the claimed integrated conductor is not
met by the cited references. We have found that the
integrated conductor is met by Ida in our analysis of claim 1.
Appellants further argue “Accordingly, since the reference
does not teach connecting the terminals of an integrated
conductor to a switching assembly, Appellants submit that
claim 4 would not have been obvious over the cited
references.” (Brief-page 14.) The Examiner cites Takaishi
for the combination of a switching assembly with a voltage
transformer in an ignition coil for an internal combustion
engine. Appellants do not dispute this combination, and in
fact disclose such a combination as prior art at page 2, lines
10-18 of their specification.
Since Ida connects all its components via an integrated
conductor, and since Ida has no switching assemblies, clearly
Ida alone cannot teach the claim 4 connections. However, once
Takaishi is combined with Ida, Ida would then have additional
components, i.e., switching assemblies, to be connected. And,
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
We note that “a second integrated conductor” is recited2
in claim 5 without the recitation of a first integrated
conductor.
-9-
using Ida’s scheme of connecting its components, it would have
been obvious to expect Ida to connect these additional
(switching) components via its integrated conductor.
Appellants’ claims recite no structural barriers or particular
component placements which would limit the use of an
integrated conductor for all components connections. Thus we
find all limitations of claim 4 to be met by the combination
of Takaishi and Ida, and we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4. Likewise, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 5 , 11, 12, 14 and 23 which stand or fall with claim2
4.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 through 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
-10-

JAMES D. THOMAS)
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO)
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART N. HECKER)
Administrative Patent Judge)
SNH/pgg
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, Macpeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, Dc 20037