Appeal No. 2002-1984 Page 5
Application No. 09/438,909
gear train 28 and appears to be mounted on the output shaft of the motor 16, it, like the
brake device of Hanley, is interconnected with the output coupling 36 only indirectly
through the gear train 28 and also locks the motor 16 in addition to the output coupling
36 when engaged by the plunger pin 22 of the solenoid 20. Moreover, Hanley’s
flywheel 68 is interconnected, via the motor drive pinion 26 and drive train 24, to the
output coupler 14, as called for in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of any error
on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Hanley. Thus,
we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 7, 11, 12, 19
and 20 which appellants have grouped therewith (brief, page 3).
Claims 21-30
Appellants (brief, page 8) assert that method claim 21 is not anticipated by
Hanley because Hanley does not disclose a step of activating said solenoid activation
element to act on a brake “to lock said output coupling into a desired position” as called
for in claim 21. The basis for appellants’ assertion is that Hanley’s brake element acts
on the drive motor to provide the necessary braking. As discussed above, while
Hanley’s brake device, by stopping the rotation of the flywheel 68 which is driven by the
motor 28, locks the motor 28, it also locks the output coupler 14, via the motor drive
pinion 26 and drive train 24, into a desired position as called for in claim 21. We thus
shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21, as well as claims 22-30 which
appellants have grouped therewith (brief, page 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007