Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
We now address Appellant's arguments.
Appellant argues (Br7) that Hajec does not have a
"reduced thickness rotor carrying portion adjacent the bearing
means" as recited in claim 9.
We disagree. Sleeve 20 has a reduced thickness
(diameter) as compared to the thickness (diameter) of the hub
16. Appellant appears to rely on disclosed limitations that
are not claimed.
Appellant argues (Br7) that Hajec does not have "magnet
means carried by an outer surface of the rotor carrying
portion of the spindle hub" (emphasis added) (claim 9),
because magnets 28 in Hajec are carried at an inner surface of
the rotor.
We disagree. Claim 9 recites "magnet means carried by an
outer surface of the rotor carrying portion of the spindle
hub," which refers to an outer surface of the rotor carrying
portion, not an outer surface of the spindle hub. The way
claim 9 is drafted allows the interpretation that the outer
surface of the spindle hub is not the outer surface of the
rotor carrying portion. Sleeve 20 is the rotor carrying
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007