Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 10
Application No. 08/625,936
The argument presented by the appellants (brief, pp. 9-
11) with respect to claim 17 does not convince us that the
subject matter of claim 17 is novel. Specifically, the
appellants argue that De Rose does not teach any specific
thickness of a flange relative to the thickness of a torsion
member since there is no reason for varying the wall
thickness. This argument is unpersuasive since it is not
commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Once again,
as pointed out above, the claimed invention is the linkage
member per se. The claimed recitation of claim 17 (i.e., the
flange is "capable of having a wall thickness between about
50% and about 150% of a wall thickness of a torsion member")
reads on the flanged end of Dr Rose's hub 103 since the
flanged end has a predetermined thickness, which thickness is
capable of being between about 50% and about 150% of a wall
thickness of a torsion member placed through the opening in
the hub 103.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007