Appeal No. 2006-0520 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/303,385
We will not sustain the rejection because in our view the appellants are correct
that:
. . . figure 3 in particular, and the accompanying text, which
shows a metal hub 302 which cooperates with a tire-like
component 304. The endplates are shown at 310. Note that
each endplate 310 includes a rounded centrally located
projection. Though this is not explicitly specified in the
specification, clearly this drawing discloses that subject
matter. Figure 3 further shows that hub 302 includes
depressions which cooperate with these rounded
projections, and note further that these depressions are
larger than the rounded projections. This is because of the
fact that the tire-like component 304 is not attached to the
endplates. If it were attached, the depressions on the hub
portion could mimic the rounded projections on the
endplates, since little, if any, lateral movement would be
possible. However, since the tire-like component is not
attached, the depressions in the hub-like portion are larger,
as depicted. [emphasis in the original][brief at page 3]
As we are of the opinion that Figure 3 depicts that the tire-like component is not
attached to the endplates 310, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 14 to 23 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Zdeblick. We
initially note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007