Appeal No. 2005-1698 Page 4
Application No.09/775,425
The rejections based on Todd
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 10 and 11 as being anticipated by Todd.
Todd discloses a vehicle wheel construction comprising a wheel 10 provided with an
ornamental cover 22 comprising a foam core base material 24 and a decorative fascia
26 molded over the base material 24. The fascia 26 and base 24 are molded such that
the openings 28 corresponding to the vent openings 20 of the rim 12 of the wheel 10
and bores 30 corresponding to the bolt holes 16 of the wheel are formed to provide the
required access. The mechanical lock of the fascia 26 around the base 24 to the rim 12
is formed through the vent openings 20 by molding the thermoplastic around the edges
of the openings 20. A flanged lip 32 is formed to secure the fascia 26 to the wheel. For
added securement, the lip 32 may also be formed around the bolt holes 26. As a result
of this mechanical attachment, no adhesive is required. According to Todd, in a
preferred embodiment, “the peripheral edge 34 of the fascia 26 extends to the edge of
the wheel” (column 3, lines 35-36).
The appellants argue, in essence, that Todd’s fascia 26 does not have “a radially
outermost edge aligned within a predetermined margin of said radially outermost edge
of said flange lip of said wheel such that said peripheral lip of said overlay cannot
extend radially beyond said outermost edge of said flange lip of said wheel regardless of
tolerance variations of said overlay and said wheel,” as called for in claim 1, because
Todd fails to appreciate the criticality of the fascia not extending radially beyond the
outermost edge of the wheel. Thus, according to the appellants, Todd’s disclosure of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007