Appeal No. 1998-0591
Application 08/538,517
The examiner explained (Paper No. 15, page 7) that in
column 2, lines 15-22, Syracuse states that as the radius
increases, the angular velocity for a given zone decreases.
That is correct. However, that is not all the appellants’
claim 12 requires. Specifically, claim 12 also requires that
as the radius increases, the linear velocity must increase
substantially. In that regard, the examiner pointed out
(Paper No. 15, page 7) that “within a given zone of constant
angular velocity, the linear velocity must increase, by
definition.” That observation, however, is not sufficient to
support the anticipation rejection, because within each zone
of constant angular velocity the angular velocity is not
decreased as the radius “r” is increased.
Claim 12 requires that as the radius “r” is increased,
the angular velocity is decreased and the linear velocity is
increased. An increase in the radius “r” is associated with a
decrease in angular velocity and an increase in linear
velocity. That follows from a plain reading of the claim
language and the examiner has not pointed to anything in the
appellants’ specification which indicates otherwise.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007