Appeal No. 2004-1844 Page 4
Application No. 09/522,023
(translation, page 3) of Inaba’s bushing 41, while, as in all real-world applications, not a
complete block to the transmission of heat, would be considered to be a thermal
isolator by those skilled in the art.
It is puzzling to us that, notwithstanding that the means for establishing a
predetermined preload is one of the features in dispute in this appeal, neither appellant
nor the examiner has specifically identified the structure in appellant’s underlying
disclosure which corresponds to the means recitation so as to determine whether Inaba
discloses that structure or an equivalent thereof in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph. We understand the corresponding structure in appellant’s underlying
disclosure to be the contour of the wheel cover 60 relative to the contour of the wheel
20 and lug nuts 40, wherein the bottom or apical portion of the lug tower 66 of the cover
60 when placed against the wheel 20 prior to tightening the lug nuts is spaced from its
position after tightening so as to create a drawdown, as indicated by arrow A in Figure
1. In other words, the wheel cover is shaped so that it will be deformed inwardly when
tightened against the wheel by the lug nuts.
While the examiner is correct that Inaba discloses that such a pre-load
arrangement was known in the prior art (Figure 1(C) and translation, page 2), Inaba
also teaches that such an arrangement is problematic, in that, as a result of creep in the
plastic material, the force pulling to the right in Figure 1(C) gradually diminishes and
ceases to be effective, causing “squeal/squeak/hum” if a gap C forms, and pre-load
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007