Appeal No. 2001-0025
Application No. 08/751,980
6". We disagree with appellant’s point of view. The JP ‘327
document (translation, page 3, lines 14, 15) makes it quite
apparent to us that leg parts (2-6) are merely “sandwiched
between” the annular disks (Fig. 2), while only hollow rivets5
structurally connect the disks(rings) together.
Responsive to appellant’s and declarant’s commentary
regarding the Goodyear reference (brief, page 7), we simply
point out that the Goodyear teaching was not relied upon by
the examiner for a disclosure of a connection between friction
rings “only” by a plurality of pins, as now claimed.
It is also asserted in the brief (pages 7 through 9) that
there is no suggestion in the applied art for pins “secured in
respective bores. . . by a heating process” as in claim 9. In
the declaration (paragraphs 8, 10, and 12), declarant likewise
addresses a lack of suggestion for securement by a heating
process. The argument appears to be premised upon the view
that the process limitation in article claim 9 is
5 In the declaration (paragraphs 8 and 12), declarant
Martin references the rivets as “pins” or “bolts”.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007