Ex parte BEIER et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 97-2605                                                          
          Application 08/272,782                                                      


          Morishima (Japanese ‘291)          61-129291      Jun. 17, 1986             
          (Japanese Patent Document)                                                  
          Tanida et al. (Japanese ‘651)      3-181651     Aug.  7, 1991               
          (Japanese Patent Document)                                                  
          Hanakawa et al. (Japanese ‘654)    3-181654       Aug.  7, 1991             
          (Japanese Patent Document)                                                  
          Shibata et al. (Japanese ‘655)     3-181655       Aug.  7, 1991             
          (Japanese Patent Document)                                                  
               Claims 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103:                
               a) as being unpatentable over the Japanese ‘291 reference;             
          and                                                                         
               b) as being unpatentable over the Japanese ‘291 reference in           
          view of any one of the Japanese ‘651, ‘654 or ‘655 references.              
               Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply briefs             
          (Paper Nos. 12 and 19) and to the examiner’s final rejection,               
          main answer and supplemental answer (Paper Nos. 8, 13 and 20) for           
          the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with            
          regard to the merits of these rejections.                                   
               The Japanese ‘291 reference discloses a cam 9 having a                 
          camshaft opening 14.  The cam consists of a plurality of laser              
          cut plates or layers 1 joined in aligned and laterally adjacent             
          relation to one another by rivets or bolts 8.  The examiner                 
          acknowledges that this cam does not meet the limitation in                  
          independent claim 8 requiring the fastening means for joining the           

                                          -3-                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007