Appeal No. 2005-1698 Page 2
Application No.09/775,425
radially beyond the outermost edge of the flange lip of the wheel regardless of tolerance
variations of the overlay and the wheel. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in
the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Applied Prior Art
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Todd 5,143,426 Sep. 1, 1992
Beam 5,368,370 Nov. 29, 1994
Chase et al. (Chase) 5,564,791 Oct. 15, 1996
Murray et al. (Murray) 5,842,750 Dec. 1, 1998
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 1, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Todd.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 18-20, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Beam.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13-15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chase.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 15-17, 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Murray.
1 The rejections based on Eikhoff, Buerger and Maloney have been withdrawn (answer, page 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007