Appeal No. 2002-1984 Page 2
Application No. 09/438,909
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Hanley1.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 13 and 15) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims2, to the applied Hanley patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 19 and 20
Hanley discloses an actuator for actuating a damper or valve in an HVAC
installation, the actuator comprising a drive motor 28, an output coupler 14 operatively
coupled to a damper (not shown) and driven, through a motor drive pinion 26 and gear
train 24, by the motor 28, a brake device including a flywheel 68 coupled to and driven
1 U.S. Patent No. 5,986,369, issued November 16, 1999 to Mark G. Hanley et al.
2 We note that “said output coupling” and “said solenoid activation element” in claim 21 and “said
solenoid activation element” in claim 31 lack clear antecedent basis. Upon return of this application to the
Technology Center, the examiner and appellant should take appropriate steps to remedy this informality.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007