Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
concern with accumulation of debris” (Reply Br. 2). Even though the wheel rim of
Yasushi does not have an equivalent space or passage to that of Juhan in terms of
size and dimension, the wheel structure of Yasushi does comprise a space between
the rim and the dual tires where snow, ice, or water could accumulate (Finding of
Fact 3). In addition, Juhan teaches an improvement to a wheel rim to solve this
problem (Finding of Fact 8). Therefore, the wheel structure of Yasushi would
benefit from the addition of the openings 7b. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82
USPQ2d at 1396 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”).
Furthermore, as noted by the Examiner, Juhan teaches that in addition to
allowing evacuation of water from passage way 5, the openings 7b may provide
improved cooling of the vehicle brakes (Finding of Fact 9). Therefore, even if,
arguendo, the wheel structure of Yasushi did not suffer from the accumulation of
snow or ice, the wheel would still benefit from the improved brake cooling
provided by the addition of the openings 7b. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 as being unpatentable over Yasushi
and Juhan.
Appellants argue claim 7 separately. Claim 7, which depends from claim 1,
requires that the wheel include a wheel disc mounted to an interior portion of the
rim. Appellants contend the wheel disc in Yasushi is “formed as part of the outer
portion 2b of the rim itself, forming a full face wheel,” not mounted to an interior
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013