Appeal 2007-0550
Application 10.763,714
Appellants argue that, since Attinger's transmission housing 5 is
mounted to allow movement of the wheel-set shaft 3 relative to transmission
housing 5, to mount housing 5 as proposed by the Examiner "is counter to
and would essentially destroy the intended operation of Attinger" (Reply Br.
8). Even assuming claim 11 did require actual mounting of the transmission
housing to a suspension arm, this argument is not persuasive of error.
Specifically, it is not apparent, and Appellants have not cogently explained,
how mounting the transmission housing 5 of Attinger to a suspension arm
would destroy the intended operation of Attinger. While Attinger seeks to
isolate the brake arrangement from the motion of wheel-set shaft 3 (Attinger
3), to avoid relative motion between the two components (disk brake and
caliper) of the brake arrangement (Attinger 2), mounting of the transmission
housing 5 to a suspension arm would not appear to cause either of the
components of the brake arrangement, the disk brake 11 of which is
mounted to the hollow shaft 7 and the brake caliper 14 of which is mounted
via piston rod 17, carrier cantilever 15 and brake cylinder 16 to transmission
housing 5, to be influenced by motion of wheel-set shaft 3. Unless that
suspension arm is also mounted to wheel-set shaft 3, Attinger's arrangement
of hollow shafts 7, 9 and shaft couplings 8, 10 would appear to afford the
isolation desired by Attinger.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claim 11, and claims
12, 18 and 22 standing or falling therewith, is sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013