Appeal 2007-0550
Application 10.763,714
to be the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense
and thus does not patentably distinguish claim 7 from Attinger.
We turn our attention next to the rejection of claims 8, 15 and 17 as
unpatentable over Attinger in view of Inoue. Appellants do not separately
argue these claims. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 8 as the representative claim to decide the
appeal of this rejection, with claims 15 and 17 standing or falling with claim
7. The issue involved in the appeal of this rejection is whether Appellants
have demonstrated the Examiner erred in determining it would have been
obvious to provide the axle shaft of Attinger with bearing assemblies as
taught by Inoue for supporting rotation of the axle shaft relative to
transmission housing 5 to reduce friction on the axle shaft, reduce local
overheating and increase efficiency (Final Rejection 4). Appellants argue
that the wheel-set shaft 3 of Attinger is supported by bearings 4 necessarily
independent of any bearings within transmission housing 5 and that any
modification to Attinger that proposes to support the wheel-set shaft 3 with
bearings in transmission housing 5 "would destroy the intended operation of
Attinger and is not proper" (Reply Br. 7).
It is not apparent and Appellants do not elaborate on why or how the
provision of bearing assemblies within transmission housing 5 would
destroy the intended operation of Attinger. While Attinger's wheel-set shaft
3 is pivoted in wheel bearings 4, wheel-set shaft 3 is also supported for
rotation, via shaft couplings 8 and 10 and hollow shafts 7 and 9, within
transmission housing 5. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding
(Final Rejection 4) that the use of bearing assemblies for supporting an axle
shaft was known in the art at the time of Appellants' invention, as evidenced
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013