Appeal No. 2003-0574
Application No. 09/568,616
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 13, 14, 20, 22, 23 and 27 is not well founded.
However, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 11, 12, 15-17, 19, 21, 24-
26. Our reasons appear below.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a lightweight flywheel containment composed
of a combination of three layers of various material which absorb the energy of a flywheel
during structural failure. The various layers of material act as a vacuum barrier,
momentum spreader, energy absorber, and reaction plate. (Specification, p. 5). Claim 11,
which is representative of the claimed invention, appears below:
11. A lightweight containment for flywheels consisting of:
three radially positioned layers of material constructed to enclose a
flywheel;
each of said layers of material being in contact with an adjacent layer and
composed of a different material.
I. The Rejection under Section 112, ¶2
The Examiner must demonstrate that the claims do not “set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.” In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), emphasis added. The purpose
of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to basically insure an adequate notification of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007