Appeal No. 98-1938
Application 08/570,196
Since the examiner’s factual finding (answer, page 3)
that the elements (6) of Jorgensen “prevent relative movement
between the rings in the circumferential direction,” is
clearly in error, it follows that the collective teachings of
Jorgensen and Honsa as applied by the examiner above do not
and can not render obvious a hub structure like that set forth
in appellants’ claims on appeal. A review of the Ender patent
applied by the examiner against dependent claim 34 reveals
nothing which would supply that which we have indicated above
to be lacking in the basic combination of Jorgensen and Honsa.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 31
through 33, 40 through 42 and 48 through 50 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on Jorgensen and Honsa, and that of claim 34 based
on Jorgensen,
Honsa and Ender, will not be sustained, and the decision of
the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007