Appeal No. 1999-0628 Page 6
Application No. 08/806,503
"completely external of" the housing as required by the claims, the examiner takes the position
that to provide the splines completely external of the housing would have been obvious in view
of the teachings of Arbus (answer, pages 3 and 4).
It is clear from the disclosure of Keese that the shaft (324) is to be coupled (via a gear
or sprocket or universal joint, for example) to the output of an engine, whereby power is
transmitted from the output of the engine to the shaft (324) and hence to the reduction gear
assembly and finally to the axle shafts. In other words, the shaft (324) is, with respect to the
reduction gear assembly, an input shaft, and not an output shaft as the examiner contends.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the examiner's reading of the claimed "output shaft" on the
shaft (324) of Keese is unreasonable.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 12 and 15
as unpatentable over Keese in view of Arbus. With regard to the remaining claims, we have
reviewed the teachings of Richter and Ward but we find nothing therein which overcomes the
above-noted deficiencies of the combination of Keese and Arbus. It follows then that we shall
also not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 4 and 13 as unpatentable over Keese in view
of Arbus and Richter and claims 5, 10, 11 and 14 as unpatentable over Keese in view of Arbus
and Ward.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007