Appeal No. 2002-1984 Page 4
Application No. 09/438,909
While Hanley clearly prefers the piezoelectric brake device 58 disclosed therein to the
use of a solenoid to stop the rotation of the flywheel 68 in order to realize a substantial
power savings, the above-mentioned teaching is a disclosure of an embodiment
wherein a solenoid is used to stop the rotation of the flywheel 68 in addition to an
embodiment wherein a piezoelectric element (beam 60) is used to stop the rotation of
the flywheel 68. A reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, but must be
evaluated for all of its teachings, including its teachings of non-preferred embodiments.
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979). As emphasized
by the examiner on page 5 of the answer, the examiner’s rejection is an anticipation
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and does not propose any modification of Hanley.
Rather, the examiner’s position, which we find reasonable as explained above, is that
Hanley teaches, albeit in a non-preferred embodiment, the use of a solenoid to stop the
rotation of the flywheel 68.
As for appellants’ argument that Hanley’s brake device 58 locks the motor 28
and not the output coupler 14, we note that, by locking the motor 28, which drives the
output coupler 14 via the motor drive pinion 26 and drive train 24, Hanley’s flywheel 68,
whether engaged by a solenoid or a piezoelectric beam, also effects a braking force on
the output coupler 14 to prevent rotation thereof. We find nothing in claim 1 which
requires that the brake be directly connected to or engaged with the output coupling or
precludes the recited brake from effecting a braking force on the motor as well as the
output coupling. In fact, in that appellants’ brake (e.g., motor fan 18) forms part of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007