Appeal 2007-0944
Application 11/159,426
obviousness that the two well-known means for securing components
together be equivalent in all respects. In our view, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to perform a cost/benefit analysis in
determining the advantage in selecting a press-fit or the use of bolts to
prevent axial movement. We agree with the Examiner that the desired
reduction in the number of parts would have motivated one of ordinary skill
in the art to utilize a press-fit rather than the bolts of Riise, along with the
obvious advantages of reducing the weight/cost and assembly time of the
wheel and assembly.
Appellants separately argue claim 18 which defines the gear case joint
136 as "outboard of said input and output gears," 64 and 68, respectively.
Appellants contend that the gear case joint of Riise, depicted by section line
2, is not outboard of gears 16 and 19. However, we agree with the Examiner
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 18 language is that
the gear case joint can be partially or totally disposed outboard of the input
and output gears. Since Appellants acknowledge that "[t]he gear case joint
[of Riise] clearly overlaps the gears" (page 6 of Reply Br., last para.),
thereby conceding that the gear case joint of Riise is at least partially
disposed outboard of the input and output gears, Appellants have not refuted
the Examiner's factual finding that "Riise does show the gear case joint
being located outboard of the center line of the gears" (page 8 of Answer,
first para.).
As for the recitations in claims 21 and 25 that the retaining contact
pressure forms the sole attachment interface between the tube and the non-
rotating wheel component, for the reasons set forth above, we find that it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013