Appeal No. 1998-1263
Application No. 08/351,993
The examiner's proposed addition of a brake wear indicator
(Stanton) to the Chamberlain teaching simply does not overcome
the noted deficiency of Chamberlain, as earlier explained. Thus,
the sixth rejection cannot be sustained.
The seventh rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Du Bois.
Particular features of independent claims 1 and 25 have been
set forth above.
In the examiner's opinion, the claimed invention reads on
the Du Bois reference, with the pressure plate 124 of Du Bois
responding to the first rigid disk of appellant's independent
claims 1 and 25. We disagree that the Du Bois patent is
anticipatory. First, since no material is specified by the
patentee for the pressure plate 124 it is indeterminate as to
whether this plate can respond to the claimed first rigid disk,
particularly keeping in mind appellant's definition of the term
rigid. Second, it appears to us that one skilled in this art
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007