Appeal 2006-2596
Application 10/869,144
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wolfsteiner.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Final Rejection (mailed August 29, 2005) and Answer (mailed April 7,
2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments in the Brief (filed February
2, 2006, cited hereinafter as “Br.”) and Reply Brief (filed May 18, 2006,
cited hereinafter as “Reply Br.”). We also refer in our decision to an Office
Action requiring an election of species pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.141
(mailed January 7, 2005, hereinafter “Election Requirement”) and to
Appellant’s election in response to the Election Requirement (filed January
24, 2005, hereinafter “Election”).
THE ISSUE
Appellant contends that Wolfsteiner does not anticipate the subject
matter of claims 1-7, 9, and 10, because Wolfsteiner does not disclose a
force transmission mechanism that translates a rotary parking brake force
provided by an elasticity spring and rotary movement of the electric motor
into a translational brake applying movement (Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 2-4). The
Examiner contends that both spring 14’ and motor 106 of Wolfsteiner
provide a rotary force at the pivots of the brake lever 121 and caliper lever
126a, which rotary force is transformed into translational movement of the
brake pad (brake clip 82) toward or away from brake disc 84 (Answer 3).
Consequently, the issues before us are, first, whether Wolfsteiner’s brake
lever 121 and/or caliper lever 126a transforms rotary movement into
translational movement and, if so, whether the rotary movement of
Wolfsteiner’s electric motor 106 can reasonably be considered to be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013