Appeal 2007-0388
Application 10/337,459
Appellants' Specification characterizes the fuse 22 as being
"proximate to the brake heat sink 10" (Specification 3:21-22) and goes on to
describe the required degree of proximity as being a design consideration
determined on a case-by-case basis by the geometry of the wheel and tire
assembly and sensitivity to fine-tune the desired fuse temperature rise
response to brake heat sink thermal input (Specification 3: last paragraph).
While a distance of approximately ¼ inch is cited as one dimension that has
been used and tested with good results, the Specification makes clear that
this dimension could vary from application to application (Specification 4:2-
5). Accordingly, we interpret "proximate" as being any distance that yields
good or workable results. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int’l, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82
USPQ2d at 1397. Common sense dictates that such a person designing a tire
and wheel assembly provided with a safety device or safety devices as
taught by Stanton and Harvey would dimension and position the elements of
the assembly so as to produce good or workable results. Accordingly, it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position
Stanton's fuse (packing 42) "proximate" to the brake heat sink as that term is
interpreted in light of Appellants' Specification. Therefore, Appellants'
argument fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 2,
8, and 13.
Appellants' argument that, since Harvey does not show the fuse plug
installed, there is no reference by which to gauge whether it is extending
toward the axis of rotation, as required in claim 16 and claims 17 and 21,
which depend from claim 16 (Appeal Br. 6), is not persuasive of error in the
Examiner's rejection, as Stanton clearly shows the fuse extending toward the
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013