Appeal No. 1999-0628 Page 3
Application No. 08/806,503
2. Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Keese in view of Arbus, as applied above, and further in view of Richter.
3. Claims 5, 10, 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Keese in view of Arbus, as applied above, and further in view of Ward.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 22) and the answer (Paper No. 23) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Independent claim 1, which is exemplary of the invention, reads as follows:
1. Any one of an automatic transmission housing, a manual transmission
housing, and a four-wheel drive transfer case, each including an output shaft
having only one set of splines adapted to connect with a yoke and formed on the
end thereof, and only one yoke with said only one yoke being mounted on the
only one set of splines of the output shaft, the improvement comprising said
housings and said transfer case each formed to a length such that said output
shaft extends outwardly therefrom with said only one set of splines completely
external of said housings and transfer case, and said only one yoke is mounted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007