Appeal No. 2006-0135
Application 10/271,656
support (claims 1-5), a drive train assembly (claims 6-19) and a method of assembling the
drive train assembly. Independent claims 1, 6 and 20 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in the Listing of Claims attached
to appellants’ corrected brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Emmons 5,882,064 Mar. 16, 1999
Matsumura et al. 5,915,494 Jun. 29, 1999
(Matsumura)
Hohnstadt et al. 6,374,939 Apr. 23, 2002
(Hohnstadt) (filed June 19, 2000)
Claims 1 through 10, 14, 20, 25 and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emmons in view Hohnstadt.
Claims 11 through 13, 15 through 19 and 21 through 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emmons in view Hohnstadt and Matsumura.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding the above-noted
obviousness rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
May 5, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ corrected brief
(filed January 31, 2005) and reply brief
(filed July 5, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007