Ex Parte Varela et al - Page 5

               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