Ex parte MACLEOD et al. - Page 15

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

               not look to Starcevic to use a clamp spring.  Further, none of the prior art applied, taken singly or in            

               combination, would have suggested modifying Jabbari to achieve the goal of providing such a feature.                

                       Even assuming Starcevic is analogous art, we note our agreement with appellants’ arguments                  

               that Starcevic’s spring washer 20 "does not extend across an offset between a first structure (i.e., the            

               clamping flange) and a second structure mounted thereto (i.e., the clamping surface of the stator)" and             

               because Starcevic’s spring washer 20 is not tensioned between the two structures it is not a clamp                  

               spring as set out in appellants’ specification and in claim 36 (Brief, page 31).  We agree with                     

               appellants’ arguments (Brief, page 32) that a clamp spring which extends across an offset between a                 

               flange surface 376 and a clamping surface of the stator 352 (see appellants’ Figure 11), for axially                

               compressing the stator laminations, is neither taught nor suggested by Starcevic or any other applied               

               reference.  We note that Starcevic places radial tension on the stator assembly (see Figure 18), while              

               allowing for both radial and axial movement of the stator lamination assembly (see column 7, line 42 to             

               column 8, line 2), whereas appellants’ recited means for mounting "provides a dependable compressive                

               force for axially holding stator 352 in place" (appellants’ specification, page 16).  Accordingly, we find          

               that the disc drive of Jabbari modified with Starcevic and Tanaka is not an equivalent structure as that in         

               claim 36, as interpreted in light of the disclosed structure and it does not perform a claimed function.            

               Therefore, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103 as to claim 36.                         

                       We note as to claims 35 and 36, copied from Connors and Jabbari respectively, that at Oral                  

               Hearing appellants’ representative raised the issue of whether or not these claims should have been                 


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007