Appeal No. 1997-3709
Application 08/582,034
Having concluded that claims 3-6 are anticipated by the
Figure 4 embodiment of Soltis, appellants’ evidence of
nonobviousness is to no avail since, no matter how striking,
it cannot overcome a rejection based on lack of novelty. See
In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA
1974); In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425
(CCPA 1973).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Soltis in view of Wirth.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and adds that the friction
disk includes a pair of spaced apart brake friction plates,
with each of the plates including an inner surface that is
tapered radially inwardly to define a cross-sectional
thickness at the radial outer end of plate that is greater
than the cross-sectional thickness at the radial inner end of
the plate. Independent claim 10 contains similar limitations.
In the Figure 4 embodiment of Soltis, the friction disk
includes a pair of spaced apart brake friction plates, but the
plates define an asymmetric disk structure in the sense that
only the plate 18 attached to the hat section 22 of the rotor
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007