Appeal No. 1997-3742
Application 08/405,561
Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996)
citing W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 9,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellants on page 6 of the
brief argue that contrary to the “integrated” and “one-piece
assembly” as recited in claim 1, Cooper’s disk and rotor are
separate and distinct elements secured together. Appellants
on pages 8 and 9 of the brief add that the Examiner’s reason
or suggestion for combining Cooper’s storage device and Ahn’s
micromotor is unsupported.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner on
page 9 of the answer points out that Cooper’s rotor ring and
disk are integrated by bringing parts together in a one-piece
assembly. The Examiner adds that the combination of Cooper
and Ahn would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art since the advantages of using micromotors in magnetic
drive motors were known.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007