Appeal No. 2003-0083 2
Application No. 09/691,532
the debris is removed from the lubricant in the wheel axle and prevented from causing
excessive wear to the wheel components over time. A further understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 9, respective copies of
which appear in the appendix to appellant’s main brief.1
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness
are:
Frehse 4,834,464 May 30, 1989
Ehrlich 5,538,330 Jul. 23, 1996
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, “as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention” (final rejection, page 2).
Claims 1, 7-9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehrlich in view of Frehse.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and
to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 13) for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
Appellant’s specification discloses several debris extractor embodiments. In a first
embodiment (see Figures 2, 3a and 3b) the debris extractor takes the form of an assembly
1The appendix to the main brief also includes copies of allowed claims 3-6, 11-
14, 17 and 18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007