Appeal No. 2000-1304
Application No. 08/994,974
independent claims 1 and 14.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 14 as being unpatentable over
the admitted prior art in view of Sheen.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 3 and 15 as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art in view of Sheen since the
appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall
with parent claims 1 and 14, respectively (see In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claims 4 through 6 depend from claim 1 and require the
hub and sleeve to be fixed together using adhesive (claim 4),
welding (claim 5) or brazing (claim 6). The record does not
show that any of these well known fixing expedients solves a
stated problem or presents a novel or unexpected result. In
this light, the examiner’s conclusion (see page 5 in the
answer) that they would have been obvious matters of design
choice within the skill in the art is well taken (see In re
Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA 1975)).
Hence, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007