Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Juhan US 4,715,660 Dec. 29, 1987
Sorrentino US 4,925,250 May 15, 1990
Yasushi US 5,244,026 Sep. 14, 1993
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yasushi and Juhan.
2. Claims 5, 12, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that (1) “there is no motivation or suggestion to modify
Yasushi in the manner proposed by the examiner” (Appeal Br. 4), (2) “Sorrentino
is non-analogous art” (Appeal Br. 6), and (3) there is “no motivation or suggestion
to modify Yasushi with Sorrentino in the manner proposed by the examiner”
(Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner found that (1) Juhan teaches the “desirability of
including openings in the central portion of the rim of the wheel, for the purpose of
allowing drainage of water, snow, etc. that collects between the dual tires” and to
“provide improved cooling of the brake components” (Answer 6), (2) Sorrentino
“shows [the] structure for a wheel, which would function on any size wheel
regardless of application” (Answer 8), and (3) “it is well known in the art that a
larger open area located between the tires and a wheel rim would increase air
circulation around the surface of the wheel rim” and increased air circulation
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013