Appeal No. 2006-2322 Page 6
Application No. 10/676,417
§ 103(a) based on the combination of Great Britain patent GB
267,796 to Richards (“Richards”)2 in view of Ernest would be
appropriate.
2) The examiner should also consider whether a rejection of any of
dependent claims 36-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
above combination, alone, or in view of other pertinent prior art is
appropriate.
In particular, with regard to claim 35, Richards discloses a bicycle crank axle
(11) adapted to be rotatably mounted within wheel hub (1) which is mounted
between the front forks (2) of the bicycle. Richards, page 2, lines 30-35 and 79-
102. The crank axle (11) includes an axle body having first and second end
portions. Richards, Figures 1 and 2. A portion of the crank axle (11) forms a
projection (unnumbered head of bolt 11) extending radially outwardly from one of
the first and second end portions of the axle body, wherein the projection is
dimensioned and positioned to be located externally of the wheel hub (1) and the
front forks (2) (Figure 2) so as to abut against a laterally outer side surface of a
bicycle crank arm (7) to prevent the bicycle crank arm (7) from moving axially
outwardly. Richards, page 2, lines 32-33. The axle body (11) of Richards is
dimensioned so that the crank arm (7) that abuts against the projection (i.e., the
bolt head) is mounted to the projection by passing the other one of the first and
second end portions of the axle body (11) through the crank arm (7) and passing
the axle body (11) through the crank arm (7) until the crank arm (7) is mounted to
2 The appellant cited the Richards patent to the examiner in an Information Disclosure Statement
filed on January 13, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007