Appeal No. 97-2973
Application 08/316,147
This discussion clearly indicates that the examiner’s failure
to include claim 18 in the associated statement of rejection
was an inadvertent oversight.
Turning now to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claims 1 through 6, Dansi discloses a rotor assembly
comprising a pre-formed hub and a fly-wheel magneto e cast
around the hub (see Figures 1 and 2). The hub includes a
cylindrical portion d, first and second prismatic parts a and
b, and an outwardly projecting annular part c between the
prismatic portions. According to Dansi, “the surfaces of the
prismatic parts oppose a relative rotation between the hub and
the fly-wheel magneto, while slipping out between said hub and
fly-wheel is prevented, in the case of FIGURES 1 and 2, by the
annular part c” (column 2, lines 15 through 18).
The appellant argues that the subject matter recited in
claims 1 through 6 is not anticipated by Dansi because this
reference fails to meet the limitations in the claims relating
to the circumferential steps (see pages 7 and 8 in the main
brief and page 2 in the reply brief). In taking the opposite
view, the examiner points to the structure defined by Dansi’s
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007