Appeal No. 1998-1289
Application 07/906,492
away from the invention is also unpersuasive. Claim 24
does not contain any limitation which excludes or is
otherwise inconsistent with such a locking member.
Claim 26 depends from claim 24 and requires the
cylindrical extension on the wheel disc to extend axially
across only a portion of the wheel rim well portion to
position the disc concentrically upon the rim. As
pointed out by the examiner (see page 5 in the main
answer and page 2 in the supplemental answer), the
cylindrical extension 14 on Ware’s wheel disc 2 extends
axially across only a portion of the wheel rim well
portion because it stops short of the inclined wall of
the well portion which leads to the tire bead seat on rim
11. This interpretation of Ware is in full accord with
the limitation in parent claim 24 that the width of the
recited well portion is measured from the sealing bead
seat.
Thus, the combined teachings of Ware and Nelson
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007