Appeal 2007-1459
Application 10/204,413
3. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wildhaber.
4. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Litvin.
5. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wildhaber.
6. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Litvin.
In regard to the rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph,
Appellant contends that the ratio of the angular velocity directly reflects the
gear ratio such that i0 is a ratio of angular velocity and also a gear ratio and
is clearly disclosed in the Specification (Appeal Br. 5).
In regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would understand the ratio of
two known parameters without additional description (Appeal Br. 5).
In regard to the prior art rejections, Appellant contends that Litvin
does not disclose a hypoid gear (Appeal Br. 5-6) and that Wildhaber does
not disclose an involute helicoid (Appeal Br. 6).
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claim 11 complies with the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. This issue turns on whether
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make or use the
invention of claim 11 without undue experimentation.
The second issue is whether the recitation in claim 10 of the ratio
E/R20 and the recitation in claim 11 of a gear ratio of i0 renders the
respective claims indefinite.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013