Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
found that it is well known “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
that this “[i]ncreased air circulation would increase the cooling effect on brake
elements” (Answer 8). In response, Appellants argue that (1) “there is no
disclosure or suggestion anywhere in Sorrentino to support the examiner’s
position” that increased brake cooling would result from decreasing the diameter of
the intermediate rim portion of Yasushi, and (2) “[t]here is no disclosure in
Yasushi or Sorrentino that would suggest that such a structural modification would
be beneficial for Yasushi” (Reply Br. 5). However, Appellants have not provided
any evidence that the Examiner’s position is incorrect. Instead, Appellants appear
to be asserting that the Examiner’s finding regarding what is well known in the art
is incorrect because Yasushi and Sorrentino are silent with regard to the allegedly
well known facts. The mere fact that Yasushi and Sorrentino are silent with regard
to the Examiner’s findings regarding increase air circulation is not equivalent to
providing evidence that the Examiner’s findings are scientifically unsound.
Furthermore, Juhan implicitly supports the Examiner’s findings by stating that the
openings 7b may provide increased cooling to the brakes presumably by increasing
the air circulation (Finding of Fact 7). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12, 19, 20, 22 and 23 as unpatentable over Yasushi, Juhan, and
Sorrentino.
Appellants argue claim 5 separately. Claim 5, which depends from claim 4,
requires that one of the first outer flange and the first inner flange has a first
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013