Appeal No. 98-0816
Application 08/286,287
rejection of claims 13 and 14, however, this reference was only relied upon for its general teaching of a
partially compressed elastic washer and adds nothing to the base references. We also note that the
examiner additionally relied upon Kloeppel in the rejection of claim 15, however, this reference was
only relied upon for its general teaching of a foam washer and adds nothing to the base references.
Claims 13 to 17 depend from independent claim 12 and include the same salient feature as to the
adhesiveless attachment of a shield in a spindle motor assembly. Therefore, claims 13 to 17 fall with
our consideration of claim 12 for the same reasons given above. Accordingly, we will reverse the
rejections of claims 12 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claim 35 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
We turn next to the question of the obviousness of claim 35 under § 103. We note at the
outset that appellants admit (Brief, page 10) that independent claim 35 has been copied verbatim from
Connors (see claim 1 of Connors). According to appellants, claim 35 was not copied for purposes of
interference (and we note that no interference proceedings have been established by the examiner), and
claim 35 is alleged to be patentably distinct from Conners under In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29
USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994), since the disclosed structure corresponding to the "means for
attaching . . ." clause differs as between Connors and appellants’ claim 35 on appeal. Although
appellants’ claim 35 and Connors’ claim 1 are identical in wording, we find that their meanings differ
due to the patentably distinct structures found in their disclosures supporting the "means for attaching . .
. " clause. In Connors, the "means for attaching . . ." consists of screws or adhesive to perform the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007