Appeal No. 1999-0519
Application 08/728,224
rotating shaft rotates within said operating frequency range,”
as specified in appellant’s claim 1 on appeal.
Regarding independent claim 7, although the shaft in
Hamada has a mass (28) associated therewith at a central
portion of the shaft, there is no disclosure or teaching in
Hamada of a mass being disposed in combination with the shaft
“at said second order critical frequency node” as in appel-
lant’s claim 7 and no disclosure at all that said mass should
have a predetermined weight (W) equal to or greater than a
critical weight, with said critical weight corresponding to a
state wherein said first order critical frequency substan-
tially equals the lower operating frequency of the shaft,
whereby said disposition of said mass about said shaft main-
tains said first order critical frequency at a frequency equal
to or less than said lower operating frequency,
thereby controlling lateral vibration of said rotating shaft
as said rotating shaft rotates within said operating frequency
range, as in claim 7 on appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007