Appeal No. 2004-1021
Application No. 09/707,450
said outer sleeve.” The examiner submits that “[t]here is no
enablement in the specification for a step of heating, which both
expands the suspension component and shrinks the outer sleeve”
(answer, page 3). The appellants counter that
[s]upport for claim 24 is found on page 5, lines 3 to 7
of the application. As described, the suspension
component and sleeve are subjected to a heat/cryogenic
technique that is used to create an interference fit
between the suspension component 10 and the sleeve 12.
This is accomplished by heating the suspension
component 10 and cooling the sleeve 12. This technique
expands the suspension component 10 and shrinks the
sleeve 12, creating an interference fit between the two
components [brief, page 12].
The appellants’ argument accurately portrays the relevant
portion of the underlying specification which clearly indicates
that the outer sleeve is shrunk by a cooling step, not a heating
step. Such disclosure belies the appellants’ contention that the
subject matter recited in claim 24 finds support in the
specification, and provides a reasonable basis for the examiner’s
determination that the specification is non-enabling with regard
to a heating step that both expands the suspension component and
shrinks the outer sleeve as recited in claim 24.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of claim 24.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007