Appeal 2006-2880
Application 10/226,387
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
Appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the Appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
In the rejection of independent claim 23, the Examiner determined that
Maruki discloses a housing (20, 36), where the housing has a folded
reinforced/strengthening portion contiguous with the surfaces defining splines and
spaces (31a, 31b) (Answer 3).
We disagree with the Examiner’s application of Maruki to the claims. Claim
23 requires that a housing include a sidewall, where the sidewall has “a plurality of
spaced splines” and a strengthening member “formed of the sidewall material
having a folded over portion.” The clutch depicted in Figure 2 of Maruki has a
cylindrical member (36) welded to the outer side of a drum (20) (Maruki, col. 2, ll.
46-47). The sidewall of the drum (20) contains grooves (31) (Maruki, col. 1, ll.
36-39). The Examiner has taken the position that the grooves (31) are the “spaced
splines” of claim 23 (Answer 3). The sidewall of the drum (20) does not, however,
also have a folded-over portion that forms the strengthening member. Rather, the
strengthening member is formed by the folded-over sidewall of the cylindrical
member (36). We agree with the Appellant that Maruki fails to disclose a sidewall
that contains both a folded-over portion that forms a strengthening member and a
plurality of spaced splines as recited in claim 23 (Reply Brief 1). The Examiner
argues that the weld near the open end of the housing that joins the cylindrical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013