Appeal No. 2004-1844 Page 5
Application No. 09/522,023
stress and vibration/shock stress concentrations are created in the region of the bottom
11 of the cover. Thus, instead of the pre-load arrangement known in the prior art, Inaba
discloses provision of a bushing 41 which both slows the transmission of heat from
braking to the cover and provides elasticity to the wheel cover taper hole to allow for
expansion and contraction and absorb vibrations. The examiner’s determination that
“[t]he cover is of the same construction as that shown in figures 1A-D” (final rejection,
page 2) and that “[t]he difference between the prior art wheel cover and the inventive
wheel cover of Inaba is the heat-resistant bushing” (answer, page 4) is speculative at
best, as Inaba never states that the “pre-expanded” cover of prior art Figure 1(C) is
used in the inventive wheel assembly. It is well established that an anticipation
rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference. Rather, disclosures in a
reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear and explicit that those skilled
in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d
893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962). In fact, Inaba’s teaching that the pre-
loaded cover arrangement is problematic because of the resulting stress concentrations
appears to us to teach against using such an arrangement.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
24-26 as being anticipated by Inaba.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007