Appeal 2007-0944
Application 11/159,426
In accordance with the groups of claims separately argued by
Appellants, the following groups of claims stand or fall together:
(1) claims 1-3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22, and 26:
(2) claims 11, 23, and 24;
(3) claims 12-14 and 20;
(4) claims 21 and 25.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claimed
subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in
the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10,
22, and 26 under § 102 over Riise. Riise, like Appellants, discloses a wheel
end assembly having a non-rotating wheel component and a tube partially
received within the non-rotating wheel component, wherein the tube has an
engagement surface in contact with an engagement surface of the non-
rotating wheel component. The principal argument advanced by Appellants
is that "Riise does not disclose or teach a retaining contact pressure between
component 7 and 5" (page 3 of Br., penultimate para.). Appellants point out
that spindle or tube 7 is inserted through an opening in the cover 5 and that
the tube and cover are aligned with each other with bolts 8. Appellants
reason that "[t]here is no retaining contact pressure created between the
cover 5 [sic, and] the spindle 7 because if there were then there would be no
reason to include the bolts 8" (page 3 of principal Br., last para.). Appellants
maintain "[i]f the bolts 8 were not used in Riise, the cover 5 and spindle 7
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013