Appeal No. 2006-2322 Page 3
Application No. 10/676,417
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 35, 36, and 38-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ernest.
2. Claims 46-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ernest in view of Yamanaka.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the final
office action (mailed July 15, 2005) and the examiner's answer (mailed March 14,
2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the
appellant's brief (filed January 12, 2006) and reply brief (filed May 15, 2006) for
the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
In the rejection of independent claim 35, the examiner determined that
Ernest discloses an axle body (1) that is dimensioned so that a crank arm (17) is
capable of being mounted to a projection (16) on one end portion of the axle body
(1) by passing another end portion (3) of the axle body (1) through the crank arm
(17) and passing the axle body (1) through the crank arm (17) until the crank arm
(17) is mounted to the projection (16). Final Office Action, p. 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007