Ex parte MACLEOD et al. - Page 12




               Appeal No. 98-0816                                                                                                  
               Application 08/286,287                                                                                              

                       We agree with appellants (Brief, pages 14 and 19) that the examiner has failed to treat the                 

               axially extending portion of the spindle hub in his analysis of the corresponding structure, and that this is       

               an important part of the structure and function corresponding to the "means for attaching . . ."  We also           

               agree with appellants (Brief, page 18) that the retaining ring of Schuh does not perform the recited                

               function of attaching one structure to a radially extending end wall portion of a second structure.   The           

               retaining rings taught by Schuh only serve to pre-load the ball bearings used in the motor, and they do             

               not serve to attach a radially extending surface of a first structure (the spindle hub) to a second structure       

               (the back iron).  We also agree with appellants that Schuh concerns retaining rings used to secure ball             

               bearings and not a magnet, and that therefore the artisan, concerned with attaching a back iron with                

               screws or adhesive as in Connors, would not look to Schuh to use a retaining ring to attach a back iron             

               and magnet.  Further, none of the prior art applied, taken singly or in combination, would have                     

               suggested modifying Connors to achieve the goal of providing such a feature.                                        

                       Finally, we agree with appellants’ arguments pertaining to the nonobviousness of modifying                  

               Connors and Schuh with Hoyer-Ellefsen (Reply Brief, pages 4 to 7), particularly that Hoyer-Ellefsen                 

               fails to teach the axially extending portion of the hub and that "the resilient wave washer 72 of Hoyer-            

               Ellefsen does not teach attachment of a first structure to a second structure at all" (Reply Brief, page 6).        

               Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103 as to claim 35.                       



               Rejection of Claim 36 Under 35 U.S.C.  103:                                                                        

                                                                12                                                                 





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007