Appeal No. 98-0816
Application 08/286,287
attaching function, whereas appellants’ disclosure employs a retaining ring, an elastic washer, and an
axially-extending spindle hub portion for attaching the back iron against the radially-extending end wall
portion of the spindle hub. The combination of these three elements as taught by appellants achieves
the important function of compressing the back iron in the axial direction in order to hold it in place
without the use of adhesives. The main issue before us then, is whether or not appellants’ claim 35
would have been obvious over Connors in view of the applied secondary references to Schuh and
Hoyer-Ellefsen.
The examiner rejects claim 35 (see Answer, pages 21 to 24) over Connors (as teaching a disc
drive) in view of Schuh (as teaching a retaining ring) and Hoyer-Ellefsen (as teaching an elastic washer),
stating "that use of a retainer ring and an elastic washer would have been obvious" (Answer, page 23),
and "would have resulted in structure equivalent to that set forth in the present application as
corresponding to the ‘means for attaching . . .’ language in question" (Answer, page 24). We cannot
agree with this reasoning. As stated by appellants at pages 11 to 12 of the Brief, an analysis of the
corresponding structure of the means-plus-function language at issue here, the "means for attaching . . ."
found in claim 35, requires the following structure in order to achieve the claimed function: a retaining
ring, a compressed elastic washer, and a spindle hub having a disc receiving portion extending axially
from a radially extending end wall portion to a recess for the retaining ring. This structure, along with its
attendant function as recited in claim 35 and disclosed in the specification, is not met by any
combination of the references applied by the examiner.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007