Appeal No. 1998-0453
Application No. 08/381,306
BROOKS
Appellants argue that Brooks does teach the use of an annular groove in spacers
13, and that Brooks does not teach that the groove is only present on the uppermost and
lowermost spacers. (See reply brief, pages 7 and 8.) We agree with appellants. The
examiner rebuts this argument by referring to specific portions of columns 2 and 3 which
state that more than 3 disks are present and that the grooved spacers overcome the
tendency of the disks at the axial ends of the stack to distort due to the forces. (See
supplemental answer at page 3.) Appellants refer to different portions of Brooks and
conclude that every spacer will have the grooves. We agree with appellants. From
reading the entire disclosure of Brooks, as a whole, and the uniform usage of “spacers”
throughout and further the discussion of the distribution of the load as it moves from the
axial ends to the middle, it is clear that Brooks does not clearly disclose two different
spacers and their use at different locations along the axis. Moreover, claim 1 of Brooks
states that a spacer is between and separates each adjoining pair of disks and each
spacer has an annular groove extending radially inward from the outer cylindrical surface.
(See Brooks at columns 3-4.) In light of the disclosure of Brooks, it would be merely
speculation on our part to say that the spacers
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007