Appeal 2006-3196
Application 10/860,445
acknowledged that Ericson does not teach that the disc segments are less than
complete circles. The examiner relied on Hyde to teach using interleaved disc
segments that are less than complete circles. In particular, the examiner
determined that because the interleaved annular discs disclosed in Hyde – and in
LeBlanc, Ely, and Bok to which Hyde refers – are formed from segments, they
meet the limitation of claim 1 of “a plurality of interleaved disc segments which
are less than complete circles.” Answer, p. 4. The examiner found that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have used the segmented disc of Hyde in the brake of Ericson to
provide additional stability in high energy applications. Answer, p. 3.
The appellant contends that none of the prior art patents disclose interleaved
segments. Brief, p. 4. In particular, the appellant argues that Hyde and the
references cited in Hyde disclose segmented annular members useful in disc brakes
and that these segments are attached to an annular ring and to each other. Brief, p.
5. The appellant argues,
All of the claims require a plurality of interleaved disc
segments which are less than complete circles. All of the
references teach interleaving complete circles of braking
elements. None of the references teach simply
interleaving segments. Brief, p. 5.
While we agree with the appellant’s description of the prior art, we do not
construe claim 1 as narrowly as the appellant proposes. Rather, claim 1 is written
more broadly to require “a plurality of interleaved disc segments which are less
than complete circles.” We read the claim to require only that each segment is less
than a complete circle. We do not read the claim to require that each segment
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007