Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143
that the Examiner has not shown, either expressly described or under
principles of inherency, that each element of the claim is found.
The rear end of the hollow rib is aligned with a bearing support.
However, the rib is aligned with a bearing support of the output shaft not a
bearing support for a differential case of a wheel differential, as required by
claim 5. The bearing support of the output shaft is used to support the
output shaft and is located within the differential case. In no way can the
bearing support of the output shaft be construed to support the differential
case. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not shown, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, that each element of
the claim is found. On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2 and 5 under § 102(b). Since claims 7 and 15
contain the same limitations as claim 5, and claims 8 and 12 contain the
same limitations as claim 2, it follows that those claims were not properly
rejected under § 102(b) over Christie.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner premised the rejection on Christie showing a rib that
extends from a forward end to a rear end of a differential carrier housing.
Assuming arguendo that the structure identified by the Examiner is a rib, the
Figure 1 relied upon by the Examiner is a plain view of the differential
carrier and there is no depth in this view that would allow anyone to know
whether the structure identified by the Examiner as a rib extends for a
forward end to rear end. In addition, the structure identified by the
Examiner as a rib in Figure 1, is not shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the
location of the rib being rearward of the input shaft bearing, as required by
claim 1, can not be ascertained. Keller is cited for the purpose of teaching a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013