Appeal 2006-3055
Application 10/440,124
REMAND
We find it necessary to remand this application to the Examiner for
consideration of the following issues:
1) During any further prosecution of the application, the Examiner
should consider whether a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lambert is appropriate.
2) During any further prosecution of the application, the Examiner
should consider whether a rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lambert and Smith
is appropriate.1
Since we are primarily a Board of review, we address only independent
claims 1, 5, and 7. We leave it to the Examiner to further consider the patentability
of the dependent claims in light of the prior art discussed infra and any other
pertinent prior art.
Lambert discloses an engine comprising an engine block 10 having at least
one cylinder 14, a crankcase and a cam chest (see Figure 2B), the crankcase
separated from the cam chest by a divider wall (portion of wall 10 shown in Figure
2B between camshaft 72 and crankshaft 18) (Lambert, col. 7, ll. 35-46). Lambert
shows in Figure 2B that the camshaft 72 extends from the divider wall 10 into the
cam chest. Lambert further shows a retaining plate 108 secured to the divider 10
by a bolt (Lambert, col. 8, ll. 34-36). Lambert discloses that the retaining plate 108
1 The Examiner referred to Lambert and Smith on page 7 of the Answer as
evidence of prior art thrust plates but did not rely on them as part of a rejection of
the claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013