Appeal No. 1997-1162
Application 08/200,455
monolithic construction. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1055, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the term
"integral" covers more than a unitary construction);
In re Miskinyar, 28 USPQ 1789, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(unpublished) ("In this case, the drawings show that the term
'one-piece' means a single unit of material and excludes
separate but joined elements."). Thus, it is the terms
"one-piece" and "unitary" that requires a monolithic
construction, not the term "integrally formed." Appellant's
arguments about an "integral" or "integrated" construction are
interpreted to refer to the unitary or monolithic structure of
the rotor and sleeve.
The primary references to Jabbari, Stefansky, Simazu, and
MacLeod (figure 5) all disclose fixed spindle disk drive units
having a one-piece integrally formed rotor and sleeve portion.
From the grouping of claims, it is clear that Jabbari,
Stefansky, and Simazu are also cited to show the outer-rotor
arrangement of yoke, yoke holder, and magnets recited in
claims 12 and 13 (which arrangement is admitted to be prior
art in Appellant's figure 12) and MacLeod is cited to show a
generic motor arrangement recited in claim 12 or an outer-
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007