Appeal No. 2004-1599
Application No. 09/784,466
apply a force in the first direction as required by claims 1 and
21. See the Brief and the Reply Brief in their entirety. We do
not agree with the appellant for the reasons set forth by the
examiner in the Answer. Specifically, we observe that Arnold
teaches (column 6, lines 31-39 and column 8, lines 37-42) that:
Main compression spring 30 then expands to displace the
moveable member to the right toward the illustrated brake
applied position. If desired, during this movement of
movable member 8 to the right toward the brake-actuated
position, the electric motor 50 may be operated ... to
control the speed of return travel of the movable
member ....
... said electric motor is a reversible direct-current
motor (50); and further including means for operating
said motor when said movable member is in the brake-
applied position to further drive the movable member in
the brake-applied direction. [Emphasis added].
Implicit in these teachings is that both the electric motor and the
spring assist the movement of the movable member 8 at least during
one point in which the movable member 8 moves toward right (the
brake-applied direction).
Thus, we concur with the examiner that Arnold teaches each and
every feature of the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 21.1
1 We also agree with the examiner that claim 1 is broader
than claim 21 in that claim 1 merely requires that the motor 50
be “capable” of applying a force in first and second (opposite)
directions to drive a movable member (rather than actually using
the motor to apply a force in the first and second directions to
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007