Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable over Yasushi and
Juhan for the reasons presented, supra, with respect to claim 7.
Rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino
Appellants argue claims 12, 19, 20, 22 and 23 as a group. As such, we select
claim 12 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims of this group stand or
fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claims 5 and 21 will be
treated separately.
Appellants contend that claim 12 is patentable over the combination of
Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino because (1) “Sorrentino is non-analogous art,” and
(2) there is “no motivation or suggestion to modify Yasushi with the teachings of
Sorrentino in the manner proposed by the examiner” (Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner
found that (1) Sorrentino teaches a “structure for a wheel, which would function on
any size wheel regardless of application” and (2) “it is well known in the art that a
larger open area located between the tires and a wheel rim would increase air
circulation around the surface of the wheel rim” and “[i]ncreased air circulation
would increase the cooling effect on brake elements” (Answer 8). We sustain the
Examiner.
Appellants contend that Sorrentino and the claimed invention are not in the
same field of endeavor because “[t]he inventor’s field of endeavor is vehicle
wheels for the automotive industry” and Sorrentino’s field of endeavor “concerns
radio-controlled toy cars” (Appeal Br. 7). We disagree.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013