Ex parte POLLOCK et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-0290                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 09/084,871                                                  


               The appellants’ invention relates to a one-piece steering              
          knuckle assembly for vehicles wherein the tie rod arm as well               
          as the hydraulic brake caliper bracket and axle spindle are                 
          forged together as a single piece (specification, page 1).                  
          According to appellants, “[s]uch a design eliminates the brake              
          caliper/knuckle joint and the tie rod arm/knuckle joint, and                
          thus, it results in savings in assembly time and weight”                    
          (specification, page 2).  A copy of the claims under appeal is              
          set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.1                        
               The examiner relied upon the following prior art                       
          references in rejecting the appealed claims:                                
          Afanador et al. (Afanador)         3,801,124           Apr.  2,             
                                                                 1974                 
          Mitchell                           5,219,176           Jun. 15,             
                                                                 1993                 
               Claims 1-5  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as2                                                            
          being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Afanador.                       



               The copies of claims 3 and 4 in the appendix to appellants’ brief1                                                                     
          include minor errors in reproduction, in that, in line 2 thereof, “flange”  
          should be “flanged.”                                                        
               Although the rejected claims were not identified in the statement of2                                                                     
          the rejection on page 3 of the answer, it is apparent from the final rejection
          and from the examiner’s agreement (answer, page 2) with appellants’ statement
          of the issues that claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).      







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007