Appeal No. 2001-0302
Application No. 08/635,614
further in view of Milby or Parker (rejection (f)). In the
present case, it is not apparent to us, and the examiner has not
explained, where the range of deformation values *b for the
torque limiter member called for in the last paragraph of claim
1 is taught or suggested by Milby and/or Parker. For this
reason, Milby and Parker, taken either collectively or
individually, do not make up for the deficiencies of Ito, Takaoka
and Wehr discussed above. Therefore, rejections (e) and (f) also
shall not be sustained.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007