Appeal No. 1997-3472
Application 08/405,278
Appellants argue on page 3 that claim 1, from which claim
14 depends, recites that the rotor is integrated with a disk
in a one piece assembly. Appellants argue that claim 1 is
broadly written and does not recite that the rotor must be
directly attached coplanar to only the perimeter of the disk
as shown in the Figure 1 embodiment. Appellants argue that
claim 14 is another species in which the rotor 16d is now
being defined with its cooperating rotor shaft 34d as joined
to the plural disk. Appellants argue that the structure as
recited in claim 14 is integrated with a disk in a one-piece
assembly as claimed in Appellants' claim 1. On page 4 of the
request for rehearing, Appellants further point to Appellants'
specification arguing that it clearly discloses the one-piece
ABS construction of a rotor shaft 34d and disk 12, and the
rotor 16 formed on the shaft. Appellants argue that the
specification expressly discloses at page 12, line 1+, that
not only can magnetic coatings be applied to the surface of
the ABS disk 12, but the entire rotor 16d may be formed from a
suitable magnetic material. Appellants argue that this is
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007