Appeal No. 1999-0943
Application 08/906,135
indicated that the wire is tension wound about the inner member (11, 16) “with a drag of between
5 and 100 pounds” so as to generate considerable compressive force in the flange of the drum
which counteracts the expansive force developed in the drum during normal or heavy-duty
braking. Appellant’s position (reply brief, page 6) that the wire in Whitfield, and particularly the
core (22), is “completely relaxed” by the fusion of the low fusing temperature metals (16, 24)
during formation of the brake drum, is belied by the express disclosure in Whitfield (e.g., col. 4,
lines 11-13, and col. 4, lines 44-48, that the compressive force of the wire therein is amply
sufficient to reinforce and prevent distortion of the drum flange during use and to counteract the
expansive force developed in the drum during normal or heavy-duty braking.
Based on the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Whitfield. In accordance with
appellant’s grouping of the claims, it follows that dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and claim 11,
will fall with claim 1.
Dependent claim 2 on appeal adds the limitation to claim 1 that the brake drum includes
“an outer shell molded over and completely covering the length of the wire” and that the outer
shell is formed of a third material having a coefficient of expansion approximately equal to that
of the first material. In treating this claim, the examiner has taken the position that the fused
material seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Whitfield constitutes an “outer shell” molded over and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007