Appeal No. 98-1200
Application 08/589,780
dimensioned to be receivable within the bore of an element to
be mounted on a shaft and "means for (a) envelopment of at
least a portion of said sleeve, (b) entering said bore, (c)
clamping said sleeve into fast, radial-gripping engagement
with the shaft, (d) expanding into fast, radial-gripping
engagement with said bore, and (e) impressing an axial force
against the element."
In explaining the appealed rejection, the examiner states
that
Staniszewski discloses a mounting device
substantially the same as applicant's with the
exception of a shoulder [i.e., a "means for . . .
entering said bore"]. Lewis teaches the use of a
shoulder 22 for the purpose of supporting a wheel W.
It would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's
invention to modify the device of Staniszewski as
taught by Lewis [final rejection, page 2].
The appellant submits that this rejection is unsound
because Staniszewski and Lewis, even if combined in the manner
proposed by the examiner, would not result in a mounting
device meeting the limitation in claim 18 requiring "means for
. . . expanding into fast, radial-gripping engagement with
said bore."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007