Appeal No. 1999-0943
Application 08/906,135
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that on pages 11 and 12 of the brief appellant has set out
seven groupings of his claims. In accordance with those groupings, in the following portions of
our decision we will specifically discuss independent claims 1, 12, 17 and 19, and dependent
claims 2, 6 and 10 which have each been separately argued by appellant. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and
11 will stand or fall on the basis of our determination regarding independent claim 1, claim 3 will
stand or fall with claim 2, claims 13 through 16 will stand or fall with claim 12, claim 18 will
stand or fall with claim 17, and claims 20 and 21 will stand or fall with claim 19.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art Whitfield reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have
made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting independent claims 1, 12, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Whitfield, the examiner has indicated that this patent discloses a brake drum comprising a
tubular inner member formed of the elements (11) and (16) seen in Figure 2 of the patent,
wherein said composite inner member (11, 16) has an outer surface and an inner surface, and the
inner surface is capable of, or “suitable for,” directly slidingly contacting a brake pad. Note
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007