Appeal No. 2002-1477
Application No. 09/544,849
set forth in the claims. Further, the Examiner is required to show
whether the identified prior art structure which performs such a
function is equivalent to the structure disclosed in Appellants’
specification.
While it is indisputable that Nishimura’s spring elements 6
perform the function of mounting a disc to a spindle motor hub, it
is our view that the Examiner has not established that Nishimura’s
spring elements perform the claimed disc mounting function in the
same manner as the corresponding elements described in Appellants’
specification. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208
F.3d 1352, 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). At pages 5
and 10 of the specification and in Figures 3 and 4 of the drawings,
Appellants describe a disc mounting structure in the form of a
spring element 50 which is C-shaped in cross-section. As asserted
by Appellants (Brief, pages 2 and 10), the arms of the C grip the
upper and lower surfaces of the disc thereby immobilizing the disc
in the axial direction while the disc-plane curvature of the spring
element immobilizes the disc in the radial direction. In contrast
to the C-shaped spring element 50 of Appellants which envelops the
disc by gripping the upper and lower surfaces of the disc, the wavy
shaped spring element 6 of Nishimura is wedged between the hub and
the disc hole. While the compressive force established by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007