Appeal No. 97-2973
Application 08/316,147
circumferential step limitations in these claims (see pages 5
and 8 in the answer). Given the nature of tabs 78 and 82,
however, the examiner’s finding that they constitute
circumferential steps of the sort recited in claims 1, 7 and
12 is completely unreasonable. Since Gordon does not disclose
any other structure meeting these limitations, the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 7 and 12 must fall.
Claims 8 through 11 and 13 through 18 depend from claims
7 and 12, respectively. Suffice it to say that neither
Dansi’s disclosure of an indivisible rotor structure nor
Swartout’s disclosure of a fly-wheel made of fiber-reinforced
epoxy would have suggested modifying Gordon’s rotor assembly
so as to meet the circumferential step limitations in parent
claims 7 and 12. Thus, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 8 through 11, 13 through 15 and 18 as
being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Dansi and of claims
16 and 17 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of
Swartout also must fall.
Finally, our review of the record indicates the presence
of a number of issues which are deserving of careful
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007