Appeal 2006-3196
Application 10/860,445
With regard to claim 3, the appellant argues that all of the cited prior art
patents disclose disc brake assemblies having annular friction lining assemblies,
some of which are assembled using segments to form a circle. Brief, p. 4. The
appellant contends that none of the cited references show friction material which is
circular in plan view. Brief, p. 4.
The examiner interprets claim 3 to be broad enough to cover a situation in
which, when all of the segments are combined to form a disc, the friction lining is
“circular in plan view.” Answer, p. 5. The examiner appears to have found that
the segmented discs shown in Bok, LeBlanc and Ely, in which the segments, and
thus the corresponding friction material on the segments, combine to form an
annulus, satisfy the claimed limitation that the friction material is “circular in plan
view.” We disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of claim 3.
Claim 3 recites that “the friction material of some segments is circular in
plan view.” The specification describes that “[t]he segment 14 carries a disc
friction puck 40 on each side (see Figure 6) positioned near the end remote from
the shaft 20.” Specification, page 2, lines 28-29. As shown in Figure 5, the disc
friction puck 40 is circular in plan view. We interpret claim 3 in view of the
specification and find that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would understand this claim to mean that the friction brake material on
each individual interleaved disc segment is circular in plan view.
While we agree with the appellant that none of the art shows an individual
segment with friction material that is circular in plan view, we note that Hyde
suggests that the friction lining “may be in the form of individual pads or sectors of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007