Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over WO ‘181 in view of Daniels or
Drutchas.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection over Daniels
Daniels discloses “a variable resistance device utilizing a variable
viscosity material for use as a brake and/or clutch” (Daniels, col. 1, ll. 7-9).
In the embodiment shown in figure 1 the variable viscosity material is an
electro-rheological (ER) material or a magneto-rheological (MR) material
and is disposed in gaps between rotating electrode plates (10) and their
respective facing opposing electrode plates (12) in a containing tube (28)
(Daniels, col. 19, ll. 42-47). The rotating electrode plates can rotate relative
to the opposing electrode plates (Daniels, col. 22, l. 66 – col. 23, l. 20). A
means (52) for applying a field to the variable viscosity material “may be a
high-voltage power source for creating an electrical field for energizing an
ER fluid, or a low voltage power source for creating a magnetic field for
energizing an MR fluid” (Daniels, col. 21, ll. 7-10). “In the case of an MR
fluid, a magnetic field generating coil can be used in place of the confining
electrode 105” shown in figure 5(a) (Daniels, col. 24, ll. 8-10).
The Appellant argues that Daniels’ ER embodiments and MR
embodiments are separate embodiments, and that interchangeability of fluids
does not extend to the machines that use the fluids (Br. 6; Reply Br. 1-2).
That argument is not persuasive in view of the above-discussed indication
that an MR fluid can be used in Daniels’ figure 1 embodiment, the above-
discussed indication of the interchangeability of the ER and MR systems,
and Daniels’ disclosure that “most of the features described herein with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013