Ex parte OHSHITA - Page 3




            Appeal No. 2000-0744                                                                              
            Application No. 09/052,162                                                                        

            attaching a rotor to a shaft as disclosed by appellant’s admitted prior art in Figure 1 of the    
            instant application and that Harned uses an additional “hollow shaft” in between the rotor        
            and the motor shaft.  It is appellant’s position that the two vertical lines adjacent elements    
            32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 in Figure 1 of Harned “indicate that a structure separate from shaft        
            22 is shown” [principal brief-page 3] because if the surface adjacent these elements were         
            part of the shaft 22, there would be only one vertical line.                                      
                   Appellant distinguishes the instant claimed invention from Harned in that the former       
            defines “a structure where the rotor is directly exposed, or is in direct contact with the        
            motor rotating shaft” [principal brief-page 3], something which is not taught or suggested        
            by Harned.                                                                                        
                   The examiner agrees that Harned is silent as to the meaning of the vertical line but       
            argues that the thin line is a part of the rotor and is illustrated to show a larger diameter of  
            the shaft, wherein the shaft has varying diameters, ranging from a thin diameter at external      
            locations to a medium diameter across from bearings 20 to a large                                 
            diameter where the motor rotor and the resolver rotor are located.  The examiner contends         
            that the thin line between the rotor and the shaft is an additional thickness of the shaft itself 
            [see pages 3-4 of the answer].                                                                    


                   Both appellant and the examiner agree, as do we, that Harned is completely silent          
            as to the meaning of the vertical line adjacent the rotors in Figure 1.  The examiner argues      

                                                      3                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007