Appeal No. 98-0816
Application 08/286,287
"provide a substantially flat surface over the wire coils," especially to the extent that such a feature is
broadly recited. We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument (Brief, pages 49 to 50) that Girault
teaches away and is therefore not combinable with Hishida and Silvaggio since all three references
pertain to stator assembly coil windings in a motor. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 23 and 25.
Rejection of Claims 1 to 11, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 34 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
We turn next to the question of the obviousness of claims 1 to 11, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 34
under § 103. Each of independent claims 1 and 26 and their corresponding dependent claims on
appeal recite the details of a spindle motor assembly and a method for making the assembly wherein the
assembly includes a rotor, a stator, a magnet, and a retaining ring. More specifically, these claims call
for the magnet to oppose "the radially-extending surface of the rotor," and for the retaining ring to
provide an axial biasing force "securing the magnet axially against the radially extending surface" (see
claims 1 and 26 on appeal). Each of claims 1 to 11, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 34 stands rejected over
the reference to Schuh in combination with either Hishida or Okada. The examiner points to either of
Hishida or Okada as teaching a spindle motor assembly having a rotor, stator, and magnet, and relies
on Schuh to teach the retaining ring for axially
biasing the magnet to the radially-extending surface of the rotor. We cannot agree with the examiner
that these features either would have been taught or suggested by the applied references, taken alone or
in combination.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007