Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yasushi and Juhan
Appellants argue claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 as a group. As such, we
select claim 1 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims of the group will
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claims 7 and 14
will be treated separately.
Appellants contend that “there is no motivation or suggestion to modify
Yasushi in the manner proposed by the examiner” (Appeal Br. 4). The Examiner
found that (1) “[t]he Yasushi wheel has a space located between the dual ties
where snow, ice, and water could accumulate” and (2) 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” (Answer 6). Therefore, the Examiner held it would have been obvious
“to provide the Yasushi wheel with the openings taught by Juhan in order to allow
drainage of the snow, ice, or water” (Answer 6). We sustain the Examiner.
Appellants argue that the bores 7b of Juhan are formed within the internal
portion 12 of rim 6 to allow debris to be evacuated from the space or passage 5 and
since the rim of Yasushi does not have an equivalent space or passage, there would
be no motivation to modify the rim of Yasushi to include such openings (Appeal
Br. 5). Furthermore, Appellants argue that the “raised center portion [of Yasushi]
does not define a passage or a space that is in any way similar to that of Juhan” nor
is there any disclosure or suggestion that the wheel of Yasushi has “a problem or
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013