Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Christie; and claims 2, 3, 5, 7 to 9, 12-13 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christie in view of
Keller.
PRIOR ART
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Christie Re. 25,269 Oct. 13, 1962
Keller US 6,245,415 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Appellants contend that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
improper because Christie does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations
recited in the claims. More specifically, the Appellants contend that Christie
fails to teach or otherwise disclose a differential carrier housing having a
hollow rib with a constant wall thickness from the forward end of the rib to
the rear end of the rib (Reply Br. 1-2). The Examiner contends that the rib
of Christie has a constant wall thickness from the forward end to the rear end
as seen in Figure 2 (Answer 4 and 15).
The Appellants further contend that Christie fails to teach the hollow
rib aligned with a bearing support for a differential case of a wheel
differential (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner contends that the hollow rib is
aligned with a bearing support 34 for an output shaft 45 of the differential
case (Answer 4).
Appellants contend that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
improper because the cited references fail to teach or suggest every
limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically, the Appellants contend
that Figure 1 of Christie relied on by the Examiner to illustrate the rib shows
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013