Appeal No. 2000-1240
Application 09/094,067
Among other features not argued, the focus of the dispute
between the examiner and appellant as to representative claim 1
on appeal is the examiner's view that the single-piece integrally
formed hub/clamp/rotor member set forth in this claim is met by
rotor 9 of representative Figures 1 and 2 of Obara. The examiner
has asserted, and we agree, that the flange 9a of the rotor 9
meets the feature of a support structure of the claims, and this
flange portion 9a, together with the body of the rotor 9 itself
to which it is integrally formed, comprise the claimed rotor
housing. The examiner initially asserts at page 4 of the answer
that there is a clamping structure, as claimed, embodied in the
vertical component of the rotor 9 abutting the disk hole shown in
the figures.
Although we agree with appellant's view beginning at page 7
of the brief that Obara is completely silent as to the issue of
clamping, it is completely silent only in text or words, but
clearly indicates to us, and to the artisan we believe, that the
disk 18 is press-fit to the outside radius of the rotor 9 as
illustrated in Figures 1-5 and 12 of Obara. "Obara is considered
to not utilize any further clamping structure, since none is
described nor depicted. The friction/interference fit is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007