Appeal No. 1999-2819
Application No. 08/631,952
Even if there were motivation to combine the
teachings of Field and Bosch, appellant is correct that
all claim limitations are not taught in the references.
There is no teaching in Bosch or Field to mount
laminations on a shaft by providing the central opening
of the laminations with compressible protrusions to form
a press fit between the laminations and the shaft. Thus,
all the limitations of the claims are not met even when
the teachings of the references are combined.
Still further, the prior art provides no motivation
for fixing the outer protrusions of Bosch on the inner
periphery of the central opening of the laminations
taught by Field. The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in this manner as indicated by the examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-1784
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Whereas claims 3, 5 and 8-13 depend directly or
indirectly from either independent claim 1 or independent
claim 7, the rejection of these dependent claims will not
be sustained.
Whereas independent claim 14, and claims 15 and 16
which depend therefrom, are directed to a method of
assembling a rotor assembly comprising a plurality of
laminations, each having a central opening defining an
inner periphery including a plurality of radially
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007