Appeal No. 2006-2534
Application No. 10/789,411
construct. We also observe that Carlson defines fiber discs 12 as optional since flat washers are
described to be interposed between the end laminations or the fiber discs 12 and the cupped
washers 13 and 14 (col. 3, lines 29-34). Similarly, we remain unconvinced by Appellants’
argument that because dependent claim 15 requires that the inner diameter of the plate bear upon
the shaft, claim 1 should be construed in the opposite way such that the plate extends shy of the
outer surface of the shaft (brief, page 4). The independent claim merely requires the plate to
extend to an area of the shaft without specifying the manner in which it contacts the shaft.
We also find that the Examiner reasonably interprets (answer, pages 5 and 6) the claimed
feature “to allow an axial deflection of the laminations in the area of the plate” as springing apart
of the laminations of Carlson once the pressure of the press released after inserting the washers.
Carlson describes the way the laminations tend to open up as exerting force on the washers is
removed, which in effect, allows an axial deflection of the laminations along the shaft where the
washers are inserted.
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments that the washers actually prevent the axial deflection
(brief, page 6; reply brief, page 3; oral arguments), their placement does indeed allow the pressed
laminations to spring apart to the extent the washers are placed. We also decline to read into the
claims limitations that are beyond the scope of the recited features and agree with the Examiner
that the washers in Carlson actually allow for deflection of the laminations inwardly and
springing apart by virtue of their placement onto the shaft.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013