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 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007