Appeal No. 2006-2322 Page 4
Application No. 10/676,417
The appellant argues that the end (3) of the axle (1) of Ernest cannot be
inserted into the opening (18) of crank arm (17) because the flats (4) at end (3) are
shallower than the flats (15) on the other end. The appellant further argues that
cylindrical portions of axle (1) directly to the right of the flats (4) cannot pass
through opening (18) in crank arm (17). Brief, p. 3.
In response, the examiner concedes that “Ernest’s Fig. 3 shows that the
cylindrical portions of axle 1 could not pass through the opening 18, 19 in the
crank arm 17. …” Answer, p. 3. The examiner argues that the assembly of Ernest
anticipates claim 35 because the user can mount the axle (1) to the crank arm (17)
by passing the end of the axle having the flats (15) through the opening (18) of
crank arm (17) and then bending the flats (15) to form the projections (16), as
shown in Figure 1. Answer, p. 4.
While we agree that Ernest discloses an axle (1) dimensioned so that the
crank arm (17) can be mounted to the axle (1) via the end having flats (15), we find
that the crank axle disclosed in Ernest is not “dimensioned so that the crank arm
that abuts against the projection is mounted to the projection by passing the other
one of the first and second end portions of the axle body through the crank arm and
passing the axle body through the crank arm until the crank arm is mounted to the
projection” as recited in claim 35. In order for Ernest to anticipate claim 35, it
would require the crank shaft or axle (1) to be dimensioned so that one could attach
crank arm (17) thereupon by passing it over the end (3) and along the body of the
shaft (1) until it rests over the flats (15) at the other end of the shaft.
As shown in Figure 3 of Ernest, crank arm (17) has an aperture (18)
provided with flat parallel sides (19) and arcuate ends. Ernest, page 2, line 130 –
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007