Appeal No. 2003-0275 Page 16
Application No. 09/550,032
of the driveshaft or axle shaft. In the modified system of Boberg the rotating magnet
would be mounted on the motor shaft, not on either the driveshaft (in Boberg the
driveshaft would be the shaft from transmission 18 to the differential 28) or the axle
shaft (Boberg's axle shafts 30) as recited in claim 20.
With regard to claim 25, the above-noted modification of Boberg does not result
in a retarding system having at least one magnet directly mounted to either one of the
axle housing or to one of the axle shaft or driveshaft. In the modified system of Boberg
the rotating magnet would be mounted on the motor shaft, not on either the axle
housing, the driveshaft (in Boberg the driveshaft would be the shaft from transmission
18 to the differential 28) or the axle shaft (Boberg's axle shafts 30) as recited in claim
20. Moreover, in the rejection of claim 25, the examiner failed to account for the
limitation that the axle has a housing extending between a pair of wheels and including
an axle shaft rotatably supported with respect to the housing for driving the wheels, a
limitation not taught by any of the applied prior art.
For the reasons set forth above, the applied prior art does not establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the decision of
the examiner to reject independent claims 1, 11, 15, 20 and 25, and claims 2 to 10, 12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007