Appeal 2006-3196
Application 10/860,445
support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed March 30, 2006)1 and
reply brief (filed June 15, 2006) for the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
The appellant argues claims 1 and 5 as a group. Brief, p. 3.2 As such, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). The
appellant argues claim 3 separately.
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner determined that
Ericson discloses an electromagnetically-actuated brake having a plurality of
interleaved disc segments (60, 70). The examiner found that some of the
segments are rotatable about an axis of rotation and some segments have friction
brake material disposed at a position remote from the axis. The examiner
1 The appellant filed an Appeal Brief on October 13, 2005; however, the Board
found the brief to be defective, returned the application to the examiner, and
ordered the applicant to file a Substitute Appeal Brief in compliance with 37 CFR
§ 41.37. See Order Returning Undocketed Appeal to Examiner, mailed March 22,
2006. The appellant filed a Substitute Appeal Brief on March 30, 2006. We refer
to this Substitute Appeal Brief throughout the opinion as the appellant’s brief.
2 The appellant attempts to condition the grouping of claims 1 and 5 on the Board
selecting claim 5 as the representative claim. We decline to do so. The appellant
has not separately argued the patentability of claim 5. As such, we treat this claim
as standing or falling together with claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007