Appeal No. 2002-1477
Application No. 09/544,849
Nishimura’s spring element 6 tends to hold the disc and hub in
fixed positions in the radial direction, there is no restraint
against movement in the axial direction.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that the
disclosure of the Nishimura reference does not provide the factual
basis necessary to support a finding that the spring element disc
mounting structure disclosed therein is of the equivalent structure
and arranged in an equivalent manner to the C-shaped mounting
structure described in Appellants’ disclosure. Accordingly, since
all of the claim limitations are not present in the disclosure of
Nishimura, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 14, as well as claim 15 dependent thereon, is not
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent method claim 17 which concludes
with a disc mounting step, we do not sustain this rejection as
well. We note that, while the absence of “step for” language
associated with the “mounting” step raises a rebuttable presumption
that the limitation should not be construed as a “step-plus-
function” limitation, it is our view that Appellants’ arguments
(Brief, pages 20-22) successfully rebut this presumption. The
Federal Circuit has recognized that the absence of express “step-
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007