Appeal No. 97-2973
Application 08/316,147
recited in claims 1 through 6 distinguishes over Dansi is not
convincing. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of these claims.
We shall not sustain, however, any of the examiner’s
other rejections.
Gordon discloses a concentric ring rotor assembly which
is described in the following terms:
An inertial energy storage rotor [2] defined by a
plurality of independent, concentric rotor rings [44
and 58] rotatable about a vertical axis. A spacer
ring [64] connects each outer rotor ring [58] to its
adjacent inner rotor ring [44] and is constructed of
a substantially rigid material. The spacer ring has
a cylindrical configuration and a plurality of slots
[68] which alternatingly extend from opposing axial
ends of the ring towards the opposite end of the
ring. The slots terminate short of such opposite
end. The spacer ring includes first and second
connecting tabs [78 and 82] which are disposed at
the respective axial ends of the ring for engaging
and rotationally interlocking the rings, supporting
the outer ring on the inner ring, maintaining the
rings concentric with respect to each other, and
permitting differential dilations in the rings
during high rates of rotation of the wheel
[Abstract].
In rejecting independent claims 1, 7 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gordon, the examiner
has found that Gordon’s tabs 78 and 82 meet the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007