Appeal 2006-2534
Application 10/789,411
persuade us that our decision was in error in any respect or we have
overlooked any relevant points in reaching our decision that the Examiner
properly rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by the
applied prior art.
1. Scope of the Claim
It is Appellants’ belief “that the Board appeared to treat claim 1 as a
process claim.” [Emphsis original.] (Request 2, ¶ 3). Appellants argue that
the axial deflection of the laminations in Carlson only happens once during
the manufacturing and cannot be equated with the claimed function of “to
allow axial deflection” which is attributed to the recited end surface (id.).
We disagree and find that Appellants appear not to have considered
the teachings of Carlson as a whole where the finished product has certain
functionalities because of the manner in which the article was manufactured.
Additionally, the claimed limitation of “attachment of a plate in such a
manner as to allow an axial deflection of the laminations” merely requires
axial deflection to be allowed, not actually occur nor to any specific degree.
Here, although Carlson’s washers dig into the shaft as the laminations tend
to move apart after the pressure is removed (col. 3, ll. 6-11), their presence
does not preclude allowing axial deflection of the laminations between the
washers even if the laminations are to be pressed together using extra force.
In other words, although the washers remain at their locations after their
placement on the shaft, the laminations can be pressed together again and
deflect axially. We also note that even if the degree of movement, bending,
or deflection of the laminations in Carlson may be very small, the
arrangement still allows some axial deflection in the same manner as the
recited function.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013