Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
Bosch because Field suggests that the rotor laminations
be mounted on the shaft by any known means and Bosch
teaches projections to ensure a tight press fit between
laminations and the laminations’ support.
As to appellant’s second argument, the examiner
takes the position that it would have been obvious to a
person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to
construct the motor of Field with laminations having a
central opening defining an inner periphery including a
plurality of radially inwardly extending compressible
protrusions defining a slightly smaller inner diameter
than the diameter of the shaft because Bosch teaches
compressible protrusions to provide a strong interference
fit between laminations and the member to which the
laminations are supported.
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have
concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
We agree with appellant that there is no motivation
to combine the stator lamination teaching of Bosch to
Field. The laminations of Bosch have protrusions on
their outer periphery to fix the position of the
laminations to outer casing 1. Application of this
teaching to Field would have resulted in protrusions on
the outer periphery of Field’s laminations, i.e., 28, 30,
32 and 34, and there is simply no reason for doing this.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007