Appeal 2007-0550
Application 10.763,714
hollow shafts 7 and 9 and shaft couplings 8 and 10; is fixed (to the hollow
shaft 7) adjacent the second (left) end of wheel-set shaft 3, as called for in
claim 13; and is attached to the second end portion (the portion to the left of
the transmission housing 5) of wheel-set shaft 3, as called for in claim 19,
indirectly via hollow shafts 7 and 9 and shaft couplings 8 and 10. Moreover,
wheel-set shaft 3 has a wheel 2 hub fixed to a first (right) end thereof.
Consequently, the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 19 are met even if the axle
shaft or axle is read on Attinger's wheel-set shaft 3 alone.
In light of the above, Appellants' argument does not demonstrate error
in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13 and 19, and
dependent claims 4, 6, 14, 20, 21, 23 and 24, which Appellants do not argue
separately from the independent claims, as anticipated by Attinger. The
rejection is sustained.
The rejection of claim 7, which depends from claim 1 and further
recites that the actuator is hydraulically actuated, as unpatentable over
Attinger in view of Anderson is also sustained. Attinger does not expressly
specify the actuating fluid used in brake cylinder 16. Anderson, however,
evidences that the use of hydraulically actuated disk brakes was known in
the art at the time of Appellants' invention (Anderson 2:4). To use any of
the well known brake actuating fluids, including hydraulic brake fluid, in the
braking system of Attinger would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of Appellants' invention.
While there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, “the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013