Appeal No. 1999-0943
Application 08/906,135
with the examiner’s position that the fused material seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Whitfield
constitutes an “outer shell” molded over and completely covering the length of the wire, and that
since Whitfield indicates that the layer (16) and the coating material (24) of the wire therein are
made of the same or similar materials, that the first material (16) and the third material of
Whitfield’s brake drum outer shell have respective densities less than that of the second material
from which the core (22) of the wire is formed and that the second material has a strength greater
than the first material. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 12 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In light of appellant’s grouping of the claims, it follows that
dependent claims 13 through 15 and claim 16 will fall with claim 12.
The last claim for consideration on appeal is method claim 17. Since we agree with the
examiner that in manufacturing the brake drum of Whitfield, the method steps as set forth in
claim 17 on appeal will inherently be carried out, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 17 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Again, given appellant’s grouping of the claims, it
is clear that dependent claim 18 will fall with claim 17.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007