Appeal No. 1999-0943
Application 08/906,135
particularly, page 4, lines 5-6, of the final rejection and page 3, lines 17-18, of the examiner’s
answer, wherein the examiner urges that the inner member of Whitfield is capable of contacting a
brake pad “via member or drum 11.” The examiner has also determined that the inner member
of Whitfield is “formed of” a first material, since the inner member (11, 16) is at least in-part
(i.e., at layer 16) formed of a low fusing temperature metal, such as aluminum, copper or
magnesium. In addition, the examiner notes that Whitfield discloses a length of wire (20) snugly
wrapped in multiple turns around a portion of the exterior surface of the inner member (11, 16),
with said wire being, at least in-part, “formed of” a second material, i.e., such as high-tensile
strength steel or alloy steel at core (22). The examiner points to the backing plate (12) of
Whitfield as providing a fastener for securing at least a portion of a wheel assembly to the brake
drum, and further points out that the first material (at layer 16) has a density less than that of the
second material (at wire core 22) and that the second material has a strength greater than the first
material. With regard to appellant’s method claim 17 on appeal, the examiner urges that the
method steps claimed by appellant are inherently performed in the construction of the brake drum
in Whitfield.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007