Appeal No. 1998-1263
Application No. 08/351,993
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The first rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7
through 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chamberlain.
Independent claim 1 addresses a friction device comprising,
inter alia, a brake stack having an axial front end adapted to be
positioned adjacent to and for contacting engagement with a
plurality of circumferentially spaced pressure application
members, the majority of the brake disks of the brake stack being
formed of a material that will deform or flow during an
anticipated high energy braking action, the front axial end of
2(...continued)
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the Board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007