Appeal 2007-0388
Application 10/337,459
lower melting point while still gaining the advantages of preventing creep-
related cooling and hardening of the fuse material afforded by the cruciform
design. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been discouraged from combining Harvey's cruciform design with the tire
and wheel assembly of Stanton.
In light of the above, we conclude that modification of Stanton's
device to provide a cruciform device of the type taught by Harvey, wherein
the entire fuse extends outside the transverse bore and thus outside the wheel
rim structure is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions and thus would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, as Stanton discloses the fuse
extending toward the brake stack of rotors and stators, Stanton as modified
meets the limitation that the entire fuse extends beyond the wheel structure
towards the brake heat sink.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' arguments do not
demonstrate error in the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 12, and
dependent claims 4-6, 10, 11, and 15, which Appellants have not separately
argued apart from the independent claims.
Appellants argue that neither Stanton nor Harvey discloses the fuse
"proximate to the brake heat sink" as required in claims 2, 8, and 13 (Appeal
Br. 6). This argument raises the issue of what is meant by "proximate."
The term "proximate" is a term of degree. When a word of degree is
used, we must determine whether the specification provides some standard
for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013