Ex Parte Anderfaas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2007

10371785 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC N. ANDERFAAS
____________

Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 16, 2007
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and JENNIFER
D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-52, which are all
of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims a rotary damper and a method for damping
rotary movement. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785

2
1. A rotary damper, comprising:

a housing;

a first plurality of plates disposed within the housing;

a second plurality of plates disposed within the housing and
interleaved with the first plurality of plates, the second
plurality of plates capable of moving relative to the first
plurality of plates;

a magnetorheological fluid contained within the housing and residing
in the interleave of the first and second plurality of plates; and

a magnetic flux generator capable of driving a magnetic flux
through the magnetorheological fluid in the interleave in a
direction transverse to the orientation of the plates and capable
of varying the strength of the driven magnetic flux.

THE REFERENCES
Drutchas US 4,790,522 Dec. 13, 1988
Daniels US 5,573,088 Nov. 12, 1996
Nakanishi (JP ‘220)1(as translated) JP 62-251220 Nov. 2, 1987
Duchovskou (WO ‘181) (as translated) WO 94/01181 Jan. 20, 1994

THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-19, 22, 24-
29, 32, 34-39, 42, 44-49 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Daniels; claims 1, 3-11, 14-22 and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by WO ‘181; claims 32, 34-42 and 44-51 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by JP ‘220; and claims 2, 12, 23, 33 and

1 Copies of the English translations of JP ‘220 and WO ‘181 are provided to
the Appellant with this decision.
Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785

3
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
Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785

4
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)
Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785

5
in a hollow area (2) surrounding the braking plates and the braking elements
(WO ‘181, pp. 3-4; fig. 1). “When electrical current flows through the
electromagnet (6), the magnetic field develops that permeates the housing
(1), the braking elements (4, 7, 9) and magnetic fluid (8) that is located in
the hollow area (2). In this process the fluid (8) changes its viscosity, which
is proportional to the voltage and current strength. As a result, forces
develop between the plates (7) and elements (4 and 9), as well as between
elements (4) and side walls of housing (1), which prevent the shaft from
turning, which is actually necessary for the formation of load on the drive
element of the training device” (WO ‘181, pp. 4-5).
The Appellant argues that the English abstract of WO ‘181 does not
disclose a magnetic fluid or identify element 6 as a magnetic flux generator
(Br. 9-10). The English abstract does not identify elements 6 or 8. The
original German, “der magnetischen Flüssigkeit (8)” (WO ‘181, p. 3) and
“den Electromagnet (6) entsteht das Magnetfeld” (WO 94/01181, p. 4) is not
an English statement that element 8 is a magnetic fluid or that an
electromagnet (6) develops a magnetic field, but is very close. Regardless,
the English translation of WO ‘181 indicates that element 8 is a magnetic
fluid (“magnetic fluid (8)”; WO ‘181, pp. 3-4) and element 6 is a magnetic
flux generator (“[w]hen electrical current flows through the electromagnet
(6), the magnetic field develops…”; WO ‘181, p. 4).
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection
over WO ‘181 or the rejection over WO ‘181 in view of Daniels or Drutchas
that is not separately argued (Br. 11-12).2

2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785

6
Rejection over JP ‘220
JP ’220 discloses a buffer that functions as a suspension system of a
vehicle (JP ’220, p. 3). The device includes an electrical coil (13) and a
housing (10) having an inner chamber (10a) containing a magnetic fluid,
magnetic pole plates (15) attached to the housing, and magnetic pole plates
(18) attached to a shaft (11) and interleaved with the magnetic pole plates
attached to the housing (JP ’220, pp. 6-8). The magnetic pole plates
attached to the shaft rotate relative to the magnetic pole plates attached to the
housing (JP ’220, p. 9). “[W]hen an appropriate amount of current is
transmitted to the electric coil 13 at the time of above-mentioned rotation, a
magnetic field is generated between both magnetic pole plates 15, 18. Then,
the viscosity of the magnetic fluid filled in the inner chamber 10a of the
housing 10 (i.e., magnetic fluid provided between the magnetic pole plates
15, 18) increases to create a phenomenon of preventing the relative rotation
of both magnetic pole plates 15, 18” (JP ’220, p. 9).
The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that
JP ‘220 discloses an MR fluid or a magnetic flux generator capable of 1)
driving a magnetic flux through the MR fluid in a direction transverse to the
orientation of the plates, and 2) varying the strength of the driven magnetic
flux (Br. 11). Even the English abstract of JP ‘220 discloses an MR fluid
and teaches that energizing coil 13 increases the viscosity of the MR fluid,
thereby suppressing relative rotation of magnetic pole boards 15 and 18.
That disclosure also appears at pages 7-9 of the English translation of
JP ‘220. The English translation also indicates that the strength of the
magnetic flux is variable (JP ’220, p. 9). As indicated by the Appellant’s
Specification (p. 7, ll. 25-30), the JP ‘220 magnetic field necessarily must be
Appeal 2006-2483
Application 10/371,785

7
in the direction transverse to the magnetic pole boards to orient the magnetic
particles in that direction such that the viscosity increase suppresses the
relative rotation of the magnetic pole boards.
Hence, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection over
JP ‘220.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-19, 22, 24-29, 32, 34-39, 42,
44-49 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Daniels, claims 1, 3-11, 14-22
and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over WO ‘181, claims 32, 34-42 and
44-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over JP ‘220, and claims 2, 12, 23, 33 and
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over WO ‘181 in view of Daniels or Drutchas, are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(2006).
AFFIRMED

hh

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042