Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
Kojima’s “bandage” 4 and attached “securing ring” 21a radially inwardly to
the integral “end plate” (i.e., the flattened portion) – a flattened portion that
would also have to be inwardly recessed to achieve the alignment recited in
claim 10.4 Such structural modifications to Kojima, in our view, simply
would not have been reasonable, let alone obvious to the skilled artisan.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 10.
Claim 17
We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Since
we find that the recited “end plate” is the flattened portion of the structure 21
in Kojima, the edge of bandage 4 is therefore not retained between this end
plate and the integral securing ring. Rather, the bandage edge in Kojima is
retained within the “securing ring” as shown in the enlarged detailed view of
Figure 1 of Kojima below:
4 Although the Examiner contends on page 8 of the Answer that the
“inwardly recessed end plate” recited in claim 10 is ostensibly not required
on the end with the securing ring (and therefore the end plate structure
shown in Figure 10 could allegedly be used on the upper end of Kojima’s
rotor), we find that the only reasonable structure in Kojima that corresponds
to the end plate 14 in Zigler is Kojima’s flattened portion of the end plate 21.
Indeed, Kojima even refers to this structure (along with the integral curled
“securing ring”) as an “end plate.” See P. 6-7, supra, of this opinion.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013