Interference No. 103,836
recites “[w]hile allowing the entire outboard surface of the wheel 11 to have a chrome-plated
finish, the overlay 20. . .”
We are of the opinion that the party Chase supports its claims 24 and 44-48 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
With respect to claims 24 and 47, we agree with Chase 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, appliqué 20 of Chase’s involved application is illustrated in
Figure 3, at the bottom portion thereof, as overlapping rim 12. Similarly, adhesive 30 is disposed
between the appliqué 20 and the rim 12. See the upper and lower portions of Figure 3. For
example, in the upper portion of the figure, adhesive 30 is shown between rim 12 and overlay 20.
The locking means coacts with the appliqué and the rim in that the locking means holds the
appliqué to the rim.
The senior party’s position with respect to its claims 44-46 and 48 is persuasive. As
noted by the Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) at page 3 of the Decision on Preliminary
Motions (Paper No. 23):
In Figure 3, the senior party illustrates a structure wherein a portion of the wheel
face outer surface, that portion between recess 42 and the peripheral lip of rim 12,
is not covered by the ornamental panel member 20.
Nevertheless, this basis alone is not sufficient to hold that Chase does not support an ornamental
panel member covering the entire wheel face outer surface. At column 6, lines 55-58, of CX-1,
Chase discloses that wheel 11 includes wheel disk 18 and a peripheral rim portion or rim 12. At
column 10, lines 11-13, Chase teaches that the appliqué 20 can cover substantially the entire
exposed surface of a wheel, and at lines 22-25 of column 10 Chase teaches the entire outboard
surface of the wheel has a chrome-plated finish. These teachings are such that appliqué 20
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007