Appeal No. 1998-1263
Application No. 08/351,993
light of the Halverson disclosure. However, the Halverson
reference, as applied, does not overcome the noted deficiency of
Chamberlain relative to independent claims 1 and 10.
Accordingly, the third rejection cannot be sustained.
The fourth rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain in view of Fisher.
Claim 20, dependent from claim 10, sets forth that each
rotor disk has a friction pad of a specified material.
Notwithstanding the teaching of Fisher sought to be applied
to the Chamberlain disclosure, the Fisher document, as used by
the examiner, does not overcome the basic deficiency of the
Chamberlain teaching. Therefore, the fourth rejection is not
sustained.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007