during the operation shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D) that takeup
member (18) rotates without a corresponding rotation of
intermediate element (17). Furthermore, as operating member
(16), intermediate element (17) and takeup member (18) rotate
relative to fixed member (15), cam surfaces (170b) and (151b)
slide relative to each other as shown in the right side of Figs.
6(B)-6(D), and intermediate element (17) m oves axially to the
left toward the disengagement position. Since cam surfaces
(170b) of intermediate element (17) always press against cam
surfaces (151b) of fixed member (15), there is never a time
during operation shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D) when operating
member (16) rotates without moving intermediate element (17)
to the left toward the disengagement position. (Appellant’s
Brief, p. 5).
Similarly, with respect to the operation of the device of Yamane in the wire
unwinding direction, as shown in Figs. 7(A)-7(D), the appellant contends, “There is ne ver
a time during the operation shown in Figs. 7(B)-7(D) (Fig. 7(A) shows the idle state)
when operating member (16) rotates without moving intermediate element (17) to the left
toward the disengagement position.” (Appellant’s Brief,
p. 5).
We agree with the appellant’s position. The structure of the Yamane device is not
configured to allow rotation of operating member (16) to rotate the transmission control
member (18) for a selected rotational distance without moving intermediate element (17)
toward the disengagement position. The teeth on the second gear portion (171) of the
intermediate element (17) of Yamane are structured so that their surfaces engage with th e
surfaces of the teeth on gear portion (160) of operating member (16) as soon as a user
rotates operating member (16). There is no space (S) provided in the device of Yamane,
as in the appellant’s invention, that would allow operating member (16) to rotate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007