Appeal 2006-2825
Application 10/691,916
Toomey’s emergency stop device is a mechanical system, not an electrical
system, and thus does not actuate the second hydraulic braking cylinder
(master cylinder 15) when there is “an omission of electric current” (Reply
Br. 6-7). In Kessler, according to Appellants, the trailer wheel brake
cylinder is actuated by a solenoid, which is actuated by an electric current,
not by an omission of electric current, as required in claim 1 (Reply Br. 7).
Therefore, the second issue before us is whether the combination of Toomey
and Kessler would have suggested “an emergency stop device being
provided which responds to the omission of the electric current, the
emergency stop device supplying a braking signal to the electric magnet for
the actuation of the second hydraulic braking cylinder in case of omission of
the current” as called for in claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1. Appellants’ second cylinder (brake cylinder 26) is actuated by a lifting
magnet 44 connected to rod 46, which is connected via lever 42 to piston rod
36 of brake cylinder 26 (Fig. 2). In the excited or energized state, magnet 44
causes the rod 46 to be fully extended, piston rod 36 to be extended, and thus
the brake cylinder 26 to be unstressed (not actuated). In a de-energized
state, wherein current is not supplied to the pulling magnet 44, a restoring
spring, also designated 44,1 retracts rod 46 and piston rod 36, thereby
pressurizing or actuating brake cylinder 26, which actuates brakes on the
wheels (Specification 4:18 to 5:3). Appellants’ “signal for de-exciting the
1 The use of the reference character 44 to designate both the pulling magnet
and the restoring spring violates the provision in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.84(p)(4)(2006) that “the same reference character must never be used to
designate different parts.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013