Appeal No. 96-3898
Application 08/420,441
inward force to hold the clamp onto the hub. Barton discloses on page 3, lines 42-52, that
the clamp is not held by a shrink fit but by a leaf spring 44 pressed against the top of the
groove 46 to urge the mounting ring downwardly against the ledge 40 on the spindle. Barton further
discloses that the leaf spring 44 is held in place by a screw 48 that screws into a threaded hole formed
in the mounting ring. Barton is silent as to the overhang, but from Barton Figure 5, it is clear that the
purpose of the overhang is not to provide additional force but only to accommodate the screw 48. We
find no suggestion to use Barton's overhang which purpose is to provide space for a screw head to
modify a shrink fit clamp when a shrink fit clamp does not require a screw or a space for a screw head.
Therefore, we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 17 through 19 and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007