Appeal 2007-1755
Application 10/930,047
diameter and said intermediate rim portion has a second diameter, the first
diameter being larger than the second diameter.
Appellants contend claim 5 is patentable over the combination of Yasushi,
Juhan, and Sorrentino because (1) “Sorrentino is non-analogous art” (Appeal
Br. 6), and (2) there is “no suggestion or motivation to modify Yasushi with the
teachings of Sorrentino” (Appeal Br. 7). We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 5 as unpatentable over Yasushi, Juhan, and Sorrentino for the reasons
presented, supra, with respect to claim 12.
Appellants argue claim 21 separately. Claim 21, which depends from claim
19, requires that one of said first outer flange and said second outer flange has a
diameter larger than said second diameter.
Appellants contend claim 21 is patentable over the combination of Yasushi,
Juhan, and Sorrentino because (1) “Sorrentino is non-analogous art”, (2) “there is
no motivation or suggestion to modify Yasushi with Sorrentino in the manner
proposed by the examiner”, and (3) “[i]n Yasushi, the outer flanges, the inner
flanges, and the intermediate portion all have an outermost circumference that is
defined by a common diameter” (Appeal Br. 9). With regard to Appellants’
arguments (1) and (2), we sustain the Examiner for the same reasons presented,
supra, with respect to claim 12.
With regard to Appellants third (3) argument, the Examiner found that
Sorrentino “teaches the use of a wheel having first and second inner flanges
(26 & 28, respectively) that have a first diameter that is greater than the diameter
of an intermediate portion that extends between the first and second inner flanges
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013