Appeal 2007-0944
Application 11/159,426
would not be held or retained to each other" (sentence bridging pages 3 and
4 of principal Br.).
Like the Examiner, we find that claim 1 on appeal does not preclude
the use of bolts for applying a retaining contact pressure between the tube
and the non-rotating wheel component. We find no error in the Examiner's
reasoning that "a contact pressure is formed between the contacting surfaces
of the elements due to the nut being torqued onto the bolt," and that "Riise
does indeed include contact pressure between the cover 5 and the spindle
tube 7, due to the retaining pressure caused by the bolts 8 connecting the
cover 5 and the tube 7 together" (page 6 of Answer, second para.). The
argument that "claim 2 states that retaining contact pressure is created by
contact by the first and second engagement surfaces" is not availing to
Appellants with respect to the § 102 rejection of claim 1 (page 4 of principal
Br., second para.). Manifestly, a recitation in dependent claim 2 is not
relevant to the § 102 rejection of claim 1.
We now turn to the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 9, 11-14, 18, 20, 21,
and 23-25 over Riise. Claim 2 on appeal recites that the "retaining contact
pressure comprises a press-fit to prohibit said tube from moving axially
relative to said non-rotating wheel component." In our opinion, Riise's use
of bolts accomplishes such a press-fit. Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to alternatively employ either bolts or a press-fit without bolts for preventing
the tube from moving axially relative to the non-rotating wheel component.
While Appellants have not accepted the Examiner's Official Notice that a
press fit and bolts are equivalents, it is not necessary for a finding of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013