Appeal No. 2004-1530
Application No. 09/870,770
appellant relies upon certain exhibits1 appended to the main brief
and the declaration of Todd Smith2 appended to the reply brief as
evidence of the state of the art at the time of appellant’s
invention.
Discussion
In rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner correctly found that the appealed claims differ from AAPA
only in the claim limitations regarding number of teeth on the side
gears and the number of teeth on pinion mate gears, and in the
relationships between these numbers (e.g., the sum of and/or the
difference between these numbers). Regarding these limitations,
the examiner takes the following position:
Applicant has also admitted in the disclosure from line
14 of page 6 of the specification until line 13 on page 7
of the specification that it was known to one skilled in
the art at the time the invention was made that gear
strength for any single pitch diameter is proportional to
the number of teeth. Therefore, the number of teeth on
the side gear and the number of teeth on the pinion gear
are both result-effective variables.
1These include a publication entitled “Passenger Car Drive
Axle Gear Design” by GLEASON WORKS (Exhibit A) and what appears
to be excerpts from a book entitled “Handbook of Gears,” pages
T44-T45 (Exhibit B).
2The declaration in question is incorrectly identified as an
affidavit. The examiner has indicated in the advisory letter
mailed September 10, 2003 (Paper No. 15) that the reply brief and
declaration have been entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007