Ex Parte Honda - Page 3

                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