Appeal 2007-0388
Application 10/337,459
Id., at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. We must ask whether the improvement is
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. Id.
In this instance, as discussed above, both Stanton and Harvey
recognize the problem of "creep" resulting from exposure of the fuse
material to the pressurized air in the tire. Further, these references address
two different problematic consequences of the phenomenon of "creep."
Specifically, Stanton addresses the potential problem of dislocation of the
fuse material under the influence of the tire pressure by tapering the passage
40. Harvey similarly addresses the issue of potential dislocation by
providing surface 18 at the free end of branch 16. Harvey additionally
addresses the potential problem of deformation of the fuse material under the
influence of the tire pressure and elevated temperature, possibly resulting in
leakage and convection cooling from leaking flow, and hence reduced
sensitivity to the temperature of the brake stack or wheel, by venting through
a transverse bore and providing a piston in the longitudinal bore between the
tire chamber and the fuse material to isolate the fuse material from the
transverse bore.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated
that providing a piston in the longitudinal passage or bore between the
pressurized tire chamber and the fuse material and a transverse bore crossing
the longitudinal bore to vent the tire pressure when the fuse material reaches
its melting point would improve Stanton's safety device in much the same
manner that it improves Harvey's device. Furthermore, such a person would
not have found the application of Harvey's cruciform device to the tire and
wheel assembly of Stanton uniquely challenging and would have
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013