Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
(26 & 28, respectively)” (Answer 4). Furthermore, the Examiner held that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art “to form the intermediate portion of
Yasushi as modified by Juhan with a diameter smaller than the diameter of the
inner flanges, as a matter of design choice, providing more free space between the
tires for air to flow to cool the brake elements of the vehicle” (Answer 5).
Appellants have not provided any evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding that
increased air circulation between the tires provides cooling to the brake elements.
As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over
Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yasushi and Juhan, and claims 5, 12, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to reject claims 1-4, 6-11,
and 13-18 as unpatentable over Yasushi and Juhan and claims 5, 12, and 19-23 as
unpatentable over Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino is affirmed.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013