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
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007