Appeal No. 2002-1984 Page 3
Application No. 09/438,909
by the motor 28 and a solenoid (column 5, line 36) for stopping the rotation of the
flywheel to thereby stop the rotation of the motor 28 and, consequently, the motor drive
pinion 26 and drive train 24 coupled thereto to thereby prevent rotation of the output
coupler 14. We note, however, that the majority of Hanley’s disclosure is directed to a
preferred embodiment wherein a piezoelectric beam 60, instead of a solenoid, is used
to engage and stop the rotation of the flywheel 68. According to Hanley, the advantage
of the piezoelectric brake device over a solenoid is that it achieves substantial savings
in power.
Appellants argue that the subject matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by Hanley
because (1) Hanley does not disclose and, in fact, teaches away from the use of a
solenoid to brake the flywheel 68 (brief, pages 10-12) and (2) Hanley discloses no
association, physically or functionally, of the braking element 58 with the output coupler
143 (brief, page 5). For the reasons explained below, we do not agree with either of
these arguments.
As for appellants’ argument that Hanley does not disclose the use of a solenoid
to brake the flywheel 68, we note that Hanley teaches, in column 5, lines 33-38, that
it is important to note that by utilizing the above-described
novel piezoelectric brake device 58 instead of the drive
motor 28 or a solenoid (not shown) to stop the rotation of the
flywheel 68, and thus maintain the damper in the desired
position, a substantial savings in power is realized.
3 Appellants’ reference to an “output coupling 24" on page 5 is apparently an inadvertent error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007