Appeal No. 2000-1240
Application 09/094,067
page 7 of the answer that the appellant's arguments appear to be
misplaced because the prosecution history reveals the focus only
upon claim 3, which is no longer rejected. Moreover, appellant,
in the arguments presented in the noted pages of the brief, makes
no references to the claims and no mention of Stinesen or any
allegations of the improper combinability of Obara and Stinesen.
In effect, appellant continues to argue Obara alone. As noted
earlier, the examiner's views of the rotor 9 in Obara and Obara's
own teachings are consistent with the single piece, integrally
formed structure claimed as well as the disclosed definition at
page 8 of the specification, lines 5-8.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 14-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Mukawa. We reverse this
rejection essentially because we agree with the appellant's views
expressed at the top of page 14 of the brief that Mukawa does not
teach that the claimed ?hub/clamp/rotor member" set forth in
claim 14 on appeal includes a rotor housing for a spindle motor.
Mukawa's table section 2 in the various figures is not a rotor
housing for a spindle motor; it is merely a solid member as
argued by appellant and is attached to the shaft 1 of the motor
5. The disk table 2 in the various figures of Mukawa does not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007