Appeal No. 2002-1984 Page 6
Application No. 09/438,909
Claims 31-40
Appellants (brief, page 9) argue that Hanley fails to disclose a structural
arrangement wherein the brake is “in communication with said damper” as called for in
claim 31. The basis for this argument appears to be that Hanley’s brake applies the
braking force to the motor 28. Be that as it may, Hanley’s flywheel 68, when engaged
by a solenoid, as in the non-preferred embodiment, transmits braking force, via the
motor drive pinion 26 and gear train 24, to the output coupler 14, which in turn is
operatively coupled to a damper, and, thus, is “in communication with said damper” as
called for in claim 31. This is akin to the arrangement disclosed by appellants, wherein
the communication between the motor fan 18 and the damper is via a gear train.
For the foregoing reason, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument of any
error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 31 as being anticipated by Hanley.
We thus shall sustain the rejection of claim 31 as well as claims 32-40 which appellants
have grouped therewith (brief, page 3).
Claims 3-6, 8-10 and 13-18
Claims 3 and 13, from which each of claims 4-6, 8-10 and 14-18 depends, either
directly or indirectly, recite that the brake “is a component of said gear train.” The brake
disclosed by Hanley comprises a flywheel 68 which is driven by the motor 28 and
appears to be mounted on the motor output shaft along with the motor drive pinion 26.
While the motor drive pinion 26 does appear to mesh with the gear 30 of the gear train
24 of Hanley, the flywheel 68 itself does not mesh with any of the gears of the gear train
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007