Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
independent claims subject to this ground of rejection includes a
vibration confinement device that is required to have both an
effective translational spring constant and an effective
torsional spring constant. As pointed out by appellant (brief,
page 9), Walkowe discloses an active system for damping resonance
torsional vibrations in a rotating crankshaft by utilizing a
device for applying relatively small torsional impulses with
precise timing at an appropriate location along the length of the
crankshaft. Thus, while Walkowe describes a vibration damping
device for applying torsional impulses to a structure, it does
not mention either “an effective translational spring constant”
or “an effective torsional spring constant” associated with such
device, each of which are required in the vibration confinement
device defined in appellant’s claims before us on appeal. Nor do
we see any reason why the device of Walkowe would necessarily
have both an effective translational spring constant and an
effective torsional spring constant. The examiner has not in any
way demonstrated or explained how the device of Walkowe meets the
above-noted structural limitations of the claims subject to this
ground of rejection. For that reason, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 29 through 31
and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Walkowe.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007