Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143
hollow rib. Keller fails to cure the deficiencies of Christie, because it does
not teach or suggest the orientation or the location of a rib on a differential
carrier housing. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has failed to
show how the cited references teach or suggest each and every claim
limitation of the claimed invention. On the record before us, it follows that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a). Since claims 2, 3, 5,
7-9, 12, 13, and 15 are narrower than claim 1, it follows that those claims
were not properly rejected under § 103(a) over Christie and Keller.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have shown that Christie does not
meet the claims limitation of claim 2 and anticipate a hollow rib having a
“constant wall thickness from said forward end to said rearward end.” The
Appellants have also shown that Christie does not meet the claim limitations
of claim 5 and anticipate a hollow rib “aligned with a bearing support for a
differential case of a wheel differential.”
On the record before us, Appellants have shown that Christie as
modified by Keller do not teach or suggest each and every claim limitation
so as to result in the claim 1 requirement for “a hollow rib extending from a
forward end located on said body rearward of said input shaft bearing to a
rear end located at said flange.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013