Appeal 2007-0022
Application 10/148,935
written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In any event, we find
the claim language sufficiently clear and definite, when read in light of the
Specification, such that one skilled in the art would be enabled to make and use the
invention without undue experimentation (Findings of Fact 16-22). Further, we
find sufficient written description for the recitations of independent claims 14 and
18 in claims 14 and 18 as originally filed (Finding of Fact 21). As such, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
The Examiner bases his findings of anticipation of claims 1 and 7 and
obviousness of claims 1-11 on an interpretation that Rabenhorst discloses a
flywheel comprised of a plurality of steel discs connected together, where the discs
are free of axial through holes (Answer 3, 4). We disagree with the Examiner’s
reading of this reference.
Independent claim 1 recites that the flywheel comprises “an axial stack of a
plurality of steel discs connected together, said discs being free of axial through
holes.” As stated supra, Rabenhorst appears to show, in Figure 6, a flywheel rotor
comprising anisotropic elements wound around the hub, and does not provide any
written disclosure as to the specific material or construction of rotor 112 that would
support the Examiner’s position (Findings of Fact 4-7).
The Examiner’s reliance on Figure 7 of Rabenhorst to interpret Figure 6 is
misplaced (Answer 9). Rabenhorst clearly describes Figures 6 and 7 as two
separate embodiments (Findings of Fact 5, 8). Further, the Examiner’s reliance on
the general disclosure in Rabenhorst (col. 3, ll. 19-20) that the elastic joint can be
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013