Appeal No. 2000-0617
Application 08/706,025
appears to be a mechanical device. Along with the figures,
Moriwaki describes a “bearing that axially supports a rotary
shaft to support, for instance, a robot arm, in such a manner
that it can freely rotate.” (Moriwaki at 2). An “arm” 26 is
shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It is clear that the “arm” can not
rotate 360 degrees like the rotor of a motor. The main body
11 prevents 360 degree rotation of the arm 26. (Findings 25
and 26).
The examiner asserts that the relevant field of endeavor
is “ball bearing systems for rotating shafts.” (Answer at 8).
We disagree that the field of endeavor is so broad as to cover
all ball bearings for all shafts. Further, when determining
if a reference is analogous, one must consider the
similarities and differences of structure and function of an
invention disclosed in a reference. See In re Ellis, 476 F.2d
1370, 1372, 177 USPQ 526, 527 (CCPA 1973). The Moriwaki
bearing assembly is for a mechanical arm that does not rotate
360 degrees as does the claimed rotor, e.g. its used in a
different structure and functions differently. Based on this
record, the examiner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Moriwaki to
design a bearing assembly for a rotor that rotates at high
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007