Appeal No. 2004-2042 Page 7
Application No. 10/019,269
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 9-13) that there is no teaching in Schenk that the
period of time the braking force is reduced is selected to be so short that any reduction
of the braking force is imperceptible as required by claims 8, 9 and 20. We agree. In
that regard, Schenk does not disclose that the period of time of the actuation in the
release direction is only so brief that any stresses in the drive of the assembly will be
reversed and that the static friction will change into a sliding friction. Thus, Schenk does
not teach that the period of time the braking force is reduced is selected to be so short
that any reduction of the braking force is imperceptible as required by claims 8, 9 and
20.
Since the "imperceptible" limitation as used in independent claims 8, 9 and 20 is
not taught by Schenk, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 8, 9 and 20, and
claims 10 to 19 and 21 to 25 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007