Appeal No. 2004-1599
Application No. 09/784,466
Here, there is no dispute that Arnold teaches an actuator
system comprising a reversible direct-current motor 50
corresponding to the claimed actuator connected by a transmission
path (e.g., screw shaft 36) to a movable member 8 corresponding to
the claimed output member, wherein the motor 50 (actuator) is
energized to apply a force in a second direction to drive the
movable member 8 (output member) left from an actuated condition to
a rest condition (the brake-released position), thus compressing
(storing energy in) a main compression spring (30) corresponding to
the claimed energy storing member. Compare the final Office action
dated October 31, 2002, pages 2 and 3, and the Answer, page 3, with
the Brief and the Reply Brief in their entirety; see also Arnold,
column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 20. Nor is there any dispute
that Arnold teaches using a stored energy force (compression) in
the spring (30) (energy storing member) to assist the movement of
the movable member 8 (output member) in a first direction (right)
from the rest condition to the actuated condition. Compare the
final Office action dated October 31, 2002, pages 2 and 3, and the
Answer, page 3, with the Brief and the Reply Brief in their
entirety; see also Arnold, column 6, lines 26-39.
With respect to claims 1 and 21, the appellant only argues
that Arnold does not teach the use of the (actuator) motor (50) to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007