Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
portion of the rim as required by claim 7 (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner found that
Fig. 1 of Yasushi shows the “disc portion of the wheel (the vertically extending
portion that includes elements 40 & 41) is mounted to an inter[ior] portion of a rim
2b” (Answer 6). Furthermore, the Examiner found that “[g]iven the fact that the
radially outermost portion of the disc is located on a section of the rim 2b that
faces radially inwardly, Yasushi meets the limitation of the ‘wheel disc being
mounted to an interior portion of the rim’” (Answer 6). We sustain the Examiner.
Interior is commonly defined as lying, occurring, or functioning within the
limiting boundaries (Finding of Fact 15). The Specification does not provide any
special meaning to the term interior, nor does it utilize the term contrary to its
customary meaning (Finding of Fact 16). As illustrated in Fig. 1 of Yasushi, the
outermost portion of the wheel disc is formed from/on an inwardly facing portion
of the rim 2b which lies within the boundaries of the outermost limits of the rim 2b
(Finding of Fact 4). Accordingly, the disc lies, occurs, or functions within the
limiting boundary of the rim 2b. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 7 as unpatentable over Yasushi and Juhan.
Appellants argue claim 14 separately. Claim 14, which depends from claim
9, requires that the wheel include a wheel disc mounted to an inner surface 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 inner
surface of the rim as required by claim 14 (Appeal Br. 6). Although claim 14
recites the phrase “inner surface” instead of “interior portion”, as recited in claim
7, we find no distinction in the Specification between the terms. As such, we
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013