Appeal No. 2003-0574
Application No. 09/568,616
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions.
Miller describes a lightweight, flywheel containment device that captures dust and
dissipates a significant amount of energy if the flywheel fails. (Col. 1). Miller’s flywheel
containment device 2, shown in figures 1-3, includes a flywheel 6 and an annular shaped
honeycomb structure 8. The honeycomb structure 8 enables the flywheel containment
device 2 to capture dust and dissipate energy into material strain rather than heat if the
flywheel 6 fails. (Col. 2, ll. 18 to 27). Miller discloses the flywheel 6 may be made of any
material conventionally used in flywheel fabrication including a resin matrix composite.
The honeycomb structure 8 includes an annular shaped honeycomb layer 10 having a
plurality of pores 11 that are open on the inner diameter of the honeycomb layer 10 to trap
dust created if a small portion of the flywheel 6 fails. (Col. 2, ll. 39 to 46). The
honeycomb layer 10 may be a deformable polymeric material or a metal such as steel,
brass and aluminum. (Col. 2, l. 63 to col. 3, l. 2).
Miller discloses the honeycomb structure 8 may comprise an additional metal layer
12, such as steel, that may be positioned around the outer diameter of the honeycomb
layer 10. (Col. 3, ll. 30 to 37). The metal layer 12 spreads the load of debris impacting
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007