BEAM vs. CHASE - Page 4



               Interference No. 103,836                                                                                                 

               portion of the rim 12 since the flange 32 at the outer periphery of the appliqué is received in the                      
               recess 42 and attached at the perimeter of the wheel disk.  According to Beam, Figure 3 cannot                           
               support a conclusion that appliqué 20 overlaps the rim 12 because the wheel 11 is of one-piece                           
               construction with no demarcation shown between the wheel disk 18 and the rim 12.                                         
                       With respect to claims 24 and 47, Beam further contends at page 13 of its brief that Chase                       
               does not support the claimed elements of a curable adhesive disposed between the appliqué and                            
               the rim along overlapping surface areas because no adhesive 30 contacts the rim 12.  It is urged                         
               that Chase does not disclose locking means coacting between the appliqué and the rim because                             
               bosses 48, recesses 50, fasteners 40 and overlay 20 coact with the wheel disk 18 and not the                             
               rim 12.                                                                                                                  
                       In opposition, Chase contends that the decision of the Administrative Patent Judge (APJ)                         
               in the Decision on Preliminary Motions (Paper No. 23) as to its claims 24 and 47 that these                              
               claims are supported by its disclosure was correct and should be affirmed, and that the decision                         
               in that same paper that its claims 44-46 and 48 are not supported by its disclosure should be                            
               reversed.  With respect to claims 24 and 47, Chase asserts that the line of demarcation between                          
               the disk 18 and the rim 12 is the juncture between the axially thinner disk 18 and the axially                           
               thicker rim 12.  Accordingly, Chase submits that appliqué 20 of its involved application is                              
               illustrated in Figure 3, at the bottom portion thereof, as overlapping rim 12.                                           
                       With respect to claims 44-46 and 48, Chase contends that Figure 3 of its involved                                
               application illustrates a portion of the rim and a web or wheel disk portion that is covered by the                      
               appliqué 20.  Chase draws attention to the fact that in Senior Party Exhibit No. 1 (CX-1), the                           
               specification of which corresponds to its involved application, at column 10, lines 22-25, the text                      


                                                                  -4-                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007