Appeal No. 1998-1533 Page 10
Application No. 08/411,202
Based on the examiner's analysis and review of Tarter and
claim 1, the examiner ascertained (final rejection, p. 4) that
the only difference is the limitation that the total width of
the friction pad member is less than substantially 1/12 of the
circumferential length of the disc rotor at a position where
the rotor is brought into frictional engagement with the upper
portion of the friction pad member.
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(final rejection, p. 4) that it would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to "have provided the structure of Tarter of for
example Fig. 4 with a group of brake shoes spaced in the
manner disclosed by Feldman [sic, Feldmann]." Alternatively,
the examiner determined (final rejection, p. 4) that it would
have been an obvious expedient at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
have provided Tarter Fig 5 with a "footprint" which would
be smaller than the ratio 1/12 since the size of the
initial footprint would be based on the anticipated wear
during the expected useful cycle of the brake.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007