Appeal No. 2000-1304
Application No. 08/994,974
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in
view of Sheen.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
10) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 13) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of this rejection. 1
DISCUSSION
As discussed on pages 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the appellants’
specification, the admitted prior art recognizes the problem
of scored and/or worn torque converter hubs and contemplates a
number of solutions including (1) replacing the entire torque
converter element (impeller or turbine) carrying the hub, (2)
replacing the hub on the existing element, and (3)
reconditioning the hub on the existing element by
diametrically expanding and refinishing it. It is not
1The second final rejection (Paper No. 9) contained a
number of additional 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections. Upon
reconsideration (see page 2 in the answer), the examiner has
withdrawn all of these additional rejections, leaving for
review the sole rejection set forth above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007