Appeal No. 1997-3472
Application 08/405,278
ample support in the specification for a one-piece assembly of
the disk 12, rotor shaft 34d and rotor 16d recited in claim 14
and expressly illustrated in Figure 8.
In our May 31, 2000 decision, we interpreted Appellants'
claim 14 language, "a plurality of storage disks coaxially
joined to a rotor shaft and axially spaced from each other for
allowing independent access thereto, and said rotor is
coaxially joined to said rotor shaft and axially spaced from
said disk for simultaneously rotating of said disk", as
reciting separate pieces being attached together. We found
that the structure recited in Appellants' claim 14 was not "a
rotor integrated with said disk in a one piece assembly" as
recited in claim 1 because claim 14 was reciting structure
that included independent pieces being attached together which
is not a one-piece integrated assembly. Having benefit of
Appellants' arguments as set forth in the request for
rehearing, we find that claim 14 language is simply labeling
the parts of a one-piece assembly in which the rotor is
integrated with the disk. We agree with the Appellants that
in viewing the claim language in this light, the claim 1
recital of "a rotor integrated with a disk in a one-piece
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007