Appeal 2007-1459
Application 10/204,413
Indefiniteness
The Examiner is of the opinion that the ratio E/R20 is unclear because
it is not mentioned in the Specification and that the term i0 is unclear
because the Specification discloses that i0 as a ratio of angular velocity
rather than a gear ratio.
We will not sustain this rejection. It is clear from the Specification
what the terms E and R20 are and that their ratio is used as design parameter
in constructing hypoid gears. In addition, as discussed above, Appellant’s
Specification is clear that ratio of angular velocity is equivalent to a gear
ratio.
Anticipation
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Litvin because we find that Litvin
discloses each and every element of claims 8 and 9. Specifically, in our
view, the disclosure in column 3, lines 56-59 that the present invention is not
limited to an intersected axes design but also contemplates gear drives that
are crossed is a disclosure that the gear design disclosed in Litvin can be
applied to an intersecting set of gears or nonintersecting gears, i.e., a hypoid
gear.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being
anticipated by Wildhaber because Wildhaber does not disclose a tooth
surface which is an involute helicoid.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013