Appeal 2007-0022
Application 10/148,935
• whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding a
motivation to combine the teachings of Nakayama and Rabenhorst.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Rabenhorst discloses an elastic joint for mounting and rotatably
coupling a flywheel to a shaft (Rabenhorst, Abstract).
2. Rabenhorst discloses that the elastic joint can be used with flywheel
structures having a shaft extending through the structure and with solid disc-type
flywheels without a through-hole (Rabenhorst, col. 2, ll. 10-17 and col. 3, ll. 22-
25).
3. Rabenhorst further discloses that the elastic joint can be used with
filament flywheels or conventional isotropic steel flywheels (Rabenhorst, col. 3, ll.
15-20).
4. The rotor 16 shown in the embodiment of Figure 1 of Rabenhorst is
described as “comprising anisotropic elements wound about the hub 14”
(Rabenhorst, col. 3, ll. 31-34).
5. Rabenhorst shows in Figure 6 an embodiment having a flywheel rotor
112 and states, “rotor 112 has no central aperture formed therein” (Rabenhorst, col.
5, ll. 55-56). Rabenhorst provides no disclosure as to the specific material or
construction of rotor 112.
6. The flywheel rotor 112 of Figure 6 is depicted in a similar fashion to
rotor 16 of Figure 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013