Appeal 2007-0550
Application 10.763,714
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 14, 19-21, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Attinger.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Attinger in view of Anderson.
Claims 8, 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Attinger in view of Inoue.
Claims 11, 12, 18 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Attinger in view of Seki.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Final Rejection (mailed December 30, 2004) and Answer (mailed July 11,
2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed
August 31, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed September 11, 2006).
FACTS
Our findings with respect to Attinger are as follows:
Attinger transmits motion from a motor (not shown) to wheel-set shaft
3 via a transmission arranged in transmission housing 5. The transmission
surrounds the wheel-set shaft 3 and transmits motion to hollow shaft 7,
which transmits motion to a second hollow shaft 9 via shaft coupling 8,
hollow shaft 9 in turn transmitting motion to wheel-set shaft 3 via another
translation of Attinger, a reference relied on by the Examiner in rejecting
claims in both the first Office Action (mailed September 8, 2004) and the
Final Rejection (mailed December 30, 2004), we find it equally mystifying
that Appellants would incur the expense of preparing and filing responses to
the first Office Action and Final Rejection and the expense of preparing and
filing an Appeal Brief without themselves obtaining a translation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013