Appeal No. 2004-0579 Page 4
Application No. 09/647,126
shoes. Baumgartner provides a friction ring 80 made of rubber or similar elastomeric
material fastened to the lower edge of the threaded bore of the traverse member 7 into
which the threaded spindle is screwed. The inside diameter of the friction ring is slightly
smaller than the outside diameter of the adjusting spindle 70 such that the friction ring
exercises a frictional torque on the spindle which prevents rotation of the spindle
automatically when stressed by shaking. As explained by Baumgartner in column 2,
lines 52-53, the friction ring “acts upon the threaded surface of the concerned threaded
spindle” to prevent rotation of the spindle up to a defined torque. When, on the other
hand, an excessive ventilating play exists, for example, after a change of the lining or
with increasing wear of the brake shoes, the spindle 70 is rotated by the adjusting
device by a certain distance to bring the ventilating play to the desired value (column 6,
lines 50-56).
The examiner (final rejection, page 2) has determined that Baumgartner differs
from the subject matter of claims 19 and 26 in that Baumgartner lacks the seal engaging
an unthreaded surface portion of the shaft (spindle). In rejecting the claims, the
examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellants’ invention to have the seal (friction ring 80) of Baumgartner
bear against an unthreaded portion of the shaft (spindle 70) as taught by Angerfors
“because sealing against a smooth surface is easier and more effective than a threaded
surface and furthermore the reduction in the amount of threads [needed on the spindle]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007