Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
and that the Bosch reference relates solely to a
structure for supporting a motor within a hollow casing
and is completely unrelated to the claimed structure of
mounting rotor laminations on a rotor shaft. The
argument is made that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider the teachings of Bosch to be
relevant to the problem of solving the expense and
distortion issues related to the prior art keyed or
splined rotor shafts.
Appellant further argues that all claim limitations
are not taught in the applied references. The position
is taken that there is no mention in Field or Bosch of a
plurality of laminations, each lamination having a
central opening defining an inner periphery including a
plurality of radially inwardly extending compressible
protrusions defining an inner diameter slightly smaller
than a shaft diameter.
The examiner explains that Bosch and Field both
involve the use of laminated cores in dynamoelectric
machines, and that a person skilled in that art would
have known that laminated cores in dynamoelectric
machines are mounted on the inner surface of a casing via
projections on the laminated cores (Bosch), or are
mounted or keyed on the outer surface of a shaft (Field).
With respect to appellant’s first argument, the
examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to
construct the rotor of Field with the projections of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007