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