Appeal No. 2005-1698 Page 8
Application No.09/775,425
The rejections based on Beam, Chase and Murray
The appellants’ only mention of these references in the brief is that “[n]one of the
Examiner’s cited references, including [Beam, Chase and Murray] disclose a peripheral
lip of a wheel cover having a radially outermost edge located within a predetermined
margin of the radially outermost edge of a wheel, and in fact none even discuss such a
predetermined margin” (brief, pages 7-8). The subsequent discussion in the appeal
brief indicates that the appellants are relying on the same line of argument discussed
above with regard to the rejections based on Todd. For the reasons discussed above,
and for the additional reasons which follow, this argument is likewise unpersuasive with
regard to the disclosures of Beam, Chase and Murray. The rejections of claims 1, 4, 5,
10, 11, 15, 18-20, 24 and 25 as being anticipated by Beam, claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13-15,
18, 20, 22, 25, 27 and 28 as being anticipated by Chase and claims 1-3, 9, 11, 15-17,
23 and 25 as being anticipated by Murray are thus sustained.
Beam discloses a vehicle wheel construction comprising a wheel provided with
an outer rim flange 14 having an annular catch 46 formed thereon. As illustrated in
Figure 5 and discussed in the last paragraph in column 5, “[a] peripheral edge 48 of the
outer connecting portion 36 of the applique 34 engages the annular catch 46 to hold the
applique 34 in place while the adhesive 42 cures.” It is quite apparent from this
disclosure, as well as the illustration in Figure 5, that the peripheral edge 48 of the
applique is expressly and specifically designed to extend within a margin of the radially
outermost edge of the outer rim flange 14 of Beam’s wheel and thus, in accordance with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007