Appeal 2006-2596
Application 10/869,144
We recognize that motor 106 produces rotary movement of caliper
lever 126a via output shaft 108, toothed belt 110, pinion 112, a series of
sleeves, spindles, and nuts, cover 120, brake lever 121, eccentric 122, and
eccentric shaft 124 (Findings of Fact 5 and 7) and that spring 14’ produces
rotary movement of caliper lever 126a via ring-shaped slide 16’, interior
sleeve 20’, interior bush 66’, cover 120, brake lever 121, eccentric 122, and
eccentric shaft 124 (Findings of Fact 6 and 7). Claim 1, however, contains
no limitation that excludes either the motor or spring producing the recited
rotary motion through any number of intermediate components. Moreover,
claim 1 does not exclude intermediate rotary-to-linear and/or linear-to-rotary
movement transformations to produce the recited rotary movement. In fact,
in the first and third embodiments of Appellant’s disclosed invention, which
are covered by claim 1 (Finding of Fact 2), the compression spring 15
produces rotary movement by first producing linear movement, which is
then transformed into the rotary movement (Finding of Fact 3) that is
transformed into a translational brake applying movement by thrust rod(s)
12, the force transmission mechanism recited in claim 1. Similarly,
Appellant’s electric motor 3 rotates its drive shaft 4 to provide rotary
movement, which is transmitted, via coupling 5, coupling shaft 6, gear 7,
planet gear 8, and intermediate gear 10, to thrust rod gear(s) 11 of thrust
rod(s) 12, the force transmission mechanism recited in claim 1 (Finding of
Fact 4).
In light of the above, we conclude that Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by
Wolfsteiner. The rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-7, 9,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013