Appeal No. 1998-0591
Application 08/538,517
We find the examiner’s explanation to be misplaced. The
specific curves of Figures 4a, 4b, 5 and 6 are evidently not
recited in the appellants’ claims. At least the examiner did
not point out where in the claims is there a recitation for
those curves. What the examiner did point out is that the
control means of claim 12 is arranged to control the drive
means so as to cause the relative angular velocity to decrease
substantially with increasing distance (r) and to cause the
linear velocity to increase substantially with increasing
distance (r). The examiner also pointed out that according to
claim 19, the decrease in angular velocity is less than
inversely with the increase of distance (r), and the increase
in linear velocity is less than proportionally with the
increase of distance (r).
In any event, we do not find Figures 4a, 4b, 5 and 6 to
be excessively vague. To the contrary, we find that they
provide helpful illustrations of various relationships between
the radius “r” and the angular velocity, and between the
radius “r” and the linear velocity. For instance, with
respect to Figure 4a, the horizontal line 31 depicts the
angular velocity in a constant angular velocity system (CAN)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007