Appeal No. 2004-1844 Page 3
Application No. 09/522,023
support of the rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 22 and 24) for the
appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claims 24-26 as being anticipated by
Inaba. Each of these claims recites, inter alia, means for establishing a predetermined
preload between the wheel cover and the wheel, the predetermined preload being
applied proximate a radially outer portion of the wheel cover and the wheel (claims 14
and 26) or means for establishing a preload on a radially outer portion of the plastic
wheel cover (claim 25) and at least one thermal isolator integrally mounted to an
elongated tubular extension of the wheel cover. Appellant argues that neither of these
features is disclosed by Inaba.
We share the examiner’s view that Inaba’s bushing 41 thermally isolates the
wheel cover from the wheel nut and from the wheel (see page 3 of the translation) and
thus responds structurally to the thermal isolator recited in appellant’s claims 24-26.
Appellant’s argument on page 10 of the brief attempting to differentiate between
thermal isolation and thermal delay is unconvincing. The “heat insulating effect”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007