Appeal No. 96-1651
Application 07/987,186
turbocharger rotor of Figure 5 of Oda, claim 13 is not
anticipated thereby since, contrary to the language of claim 13,
this figure shows a metallurgical joining means between the
inter-mediate member and the metallic shaft and a mechanical
joining means between the ceramic wheel and the intermediate
member.
The rejection based upon Ito
We reverse the rejection of claims 13, 18, 20, and 23
through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ito.
As to the anticipation issue, we find that the Ito
patent, addressed to a ceramic turbocharger rotor, relies
exclusively upon soldering or brazing (metallurgical joining
means) for assembling the rotor parts together. Thus, Ito lacks,
at the least, mechanical joining means for joining an
intermediate member to a socket portion of a metallic shaft, as
required by independent claim 13. Ito is, therefore, not an
anticipatory reference within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Further, in the matter of the obviousness issue, it is clear to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007