Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785
reference to the use of an ER fluid are, by analogy, applicable to the use of
an MR fluid” (Daniels, col. 29, ll. 45-47).
The Appellant argues, in reliance upon a Declaration by the inventor,
Eric N. Anderfaas (filed Aug. 3, 2004), that Daniels’ MR embodiment is
inoperative (Br. 7-8). Anderfaas argues that in the embodiment in Daniels’
figures 25(a)-28(d) the MR fluid is not energized (Declaration 3). The
embodiment in those figures does not include plates 10 and 12 that rotate
relative to each other and, therefore, is irrelevant. Regarding the relevant
embodiment in Daniels’ figure 1, Anderfaas argues that Daniels does not
show magnetic insulation that is needed between the critical elements to
prevent the flux from short circuiting through those elements, bypassing the
MR fluid and preventing direct MR fluid energization (Declaration 3-4).
That argument is not persuasive because Anderfaas has not shown, or even
asserted, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have interpreted
Daniels as including the non-disclosed components required to render the
device operative, such as the screws and bolts needed to hold the device
together and the magnetic insulation needed to prevent elements from short
circuiting.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejection over Daniels.
Rejections over WO ‘181 and over WO’181
in view of Daniels or Drutchas
WO ‘181 discloses a training device having a housing (1) containing
nonmoving braking plates (7) with slots therebetween (fig. 1), basic (4) and
additional (9) braking elements mounted on a shaft (3) and interleaved with
the nonmoving braking plates, an electromagnet (6), and a magnetic fluid (8)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013