Appeal No. 97-0986
Application 08/430,580
surface 38B for engagement with the portion of the armature shaft 16
immediately adjacent the cam body 24. By loading the armature 10 into the
pallet 30 so that its cam body is supported by the smaller radius support
surface 38A, the armature is held by gravity in a single angular orientation.
[Specification, pages 3-4.]
The second structure is illustrated in Figure 3 and comprises
a blade 54 extending . . . [from one of the support assemblies] toward the
other of the support assemblies . . . . The blade 54 is sufficiently thin and so
located that it is received within the radially outermost margin of one of the
armature core slots to maintain the rotary orientation of an armature.
[Specification, page 5.]
Clearly, Eckart’s belt 10 and motor 66 are different from and do not suggest either
of appellants’ disclosed structures for performing the armature maintaining function.
Further, given the structural dissimilarity of Eckart’s belt and motor compared to either of
the alternative constructions disclosed by appellants for performing the maintaining
function, and the dissimilarity in how they function to hold an armature in a given angular
orientation, it is our view that the belt and motor of Eckart cannot be fairly viewed as an
equivalent in the context of the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 of either the
larger/smaller radius support surfaces of appellants’ Figures 1 and 2 embodiment, or the
blade construction of appellants’ alternative Figure 3 embodiment. Accordingly, Eckart’s
belt and motor do not correspond to or suggest the claimed “means for maintaining.”
In light of the foregoing, and in that nothing in the Smolen reference additionally
applied against claim 9 makes up for the deficiencies of Eckart in this regard, we will not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007