Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143
the structure of the differential housing in a plan view. The Appellants
further contend that there is no depth in this view that would allow anyone to
know whether the rib extends from a forward end to a rearward end (Br. 5)
or the relative location on the rib with respect to the input shaft bearing, or
with respect to a bearing support for a differential case of a wheel
differential (Br. 6). The Examiner contends that although Christie makes no
specific reference to the structure of the rib in Figure 1, the use of ribs on
gear housings are well known in the art for structural support and cooling
means (Answer 11). Therefore, since ribs are well known in the art, the
unreferenced structure (above the label 10) in Figure 1 of Christie is treated
as a rib. The Examiner admits Christie lacks a specific mention to the rib or
whether the rib is hollow, and relies on Keller to teach a casing with hollow
ribs. The Examiner states “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Christie to employ a
hollow rib . . . in view of Keller in order to rigidify the housing for structural
integrity” (Answer 6).
We reverse.
ISSUE
There are three issues on appeal. First, whether Christie discloses a
rib that has a constant wall thickness from the forward end to the rear end.
Second, whether Christie discloses a rib that is aligned with a bearing
support for a differential case of a wheel differential. Lastly, whether the
combination of Christie as modified by Keller teaches a rib that extends
from a forward end to a rear end of a differential carrier housing.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013