Appeal 2007-1459
Application 10/204,413
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a hypoid gear in which a tooth surface of
one gear of a pair of gears is an involute helicoid. Claim 8 is illustrative:
8. A hypoid gear in which a tooth surface of one gear of a pair
of gears is an involute helicoid, wherein, in said hypoid gear, a radius
of a base circle of the gear having the involute helicoidal tooth surface
differs at a drive side and a coast side.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Wildhaber US 1,694,028 Dec. 4, 1928
Litvin US 6,128,969 Oct. 10, 2000
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the enablement requirement. The Examiner contends
that the variable i0 is not described in the Specification in such a way
as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or to which it is
most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention because
Appellant repeatedly refers to i0 as a ratio of angular velocity and not
as a gear ratio as claimed.
2. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the
invention. The Examiner contends that it is unclear what the ratio
E/R20 represents such that the metes and bounds of the claim is not
discernable.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013