Appeal No. 2006-2322 Page 5
Application No. 10/676,417
page 3, line 3. Ernest discloses that the body of crank shaft (1) is a “round” bar.
Ernest, page 2, lines 79-81. The examiner admits on page 3 of the answer that the
cylindrical portion of the shaft (1) could not pass through the opening (18) of crank
arm (17). As such, we fail to see how Ernest anticipates the limitation of claim 35
of an axle body dimensioned so that it is possible to pass “the axle body through
the crank arm until the crank arm is mounted to the projection.” Accordingly, we
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 35 or its dependent
claims 36 and 38-45 as being anticipated by Ernest.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 46-56 relies on the disclosure of Ernest
in view of Yamanaka. We find that the teachings of Yamanaka fail to cure the
deficiencies of Ernest. Specifically, we find that Yamanaka does not provide a
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the axle body of Ernest so that it is
dimensioned to allow the axle body to be passed through the crank arm from one
end until the crank arm is mounted to a projection on the other end. Rather,
Yamanaka teaches that the end faces (49A, 49B) of the crank axle (5) are provided
with internal threads (53) for affixing the crank arms (1). Yamanaka, col. 4, lines
16-17. As such, Yamanaka does not teach or suggest this missing disclosure of
Ernest. Accordingly, for the same reasons provided above, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 46-56 as being unpatentable over Ernest
in view of Yamanaka.
We find it necessary, however, to REMAND this case to the examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 for consideration of the following issues:
1) During any further prosecution of the application, the examiner
should consider whether a rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007