Appeal 2007-1420
Application 10/992,431
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as amplified
here, we sustain all rejections of the noted claims on appeal. We treat each
of the appeal claims in the manner and order in which they were rejected.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner’s correlation of the teachings of
independent claim 1 as initially set forth at page 3 of the Answer along with
the expansive correlations presented at pages 4 and 5 of the Answer as to
this claim. In contrast to the oil lubrication based embodiment in figure 1 of
Jesinger, corresponding teachings are illustrated in the air bearing-based
embodiment shown in figure 2, the discussion which occurs at columns 7
and 8 of this reference. As noted by the Examiner at the bottom of page 4 of
the Answer, the use of the word “comprising” in the preamble of claim 1
reveals that the claim is intended to be open ended in its construction. In
this light then, figure 2 in Jesinger first provides compressor 16 at the top of
the figure as an air source for parallel and separate air path 91 feeding the
motor region comprising stator 38 and rotor 37 by means of inlet 91 which is
considered to be in parallel and separate from the air paths feeding the upper
herringbone air bearing 90. A close inspection of this region in figure 2
illustrates that there are separate motor and air bearing cooling inlets feeding
these respective regions.
Additionally, a separate air source 97 at the bottom of figure 2 feeds a
common tube arrangement which is separately divided into channel 94
feeding the same motor components as identified earlier and separately in a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013