Appeal 2007-2426
Application 11/058,146
where their shafts are not directly aligned” (Ans. 5). The Examiner argues that
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantage and flexibility
for component location inherent in a separate axis alignment of said input and said
output shafts” (Ans. 6-7).
The Examiner has not established that the flexibility gleaned by the
Examiner from Thompson’s disclosure regarding skid steered vehicles would have
been desired by one of ordinary skill in the art in Mann’s electrical individual
wheel drive for a vehicle such as a golf cart wherein, Mann indicates (¶ 0004),
compact construction and light weight are desired. Mann teaches (¶ 0007) that
“[b]y virtue of the arrangement of the transmission adjacent to the electric motor
within the electric motor housing, a very compact unit is obtained”, and “[b]y
disposing the transmission in the electric motor housing, the weight of the
electrical individual drive can be reduced.” The Examiner argues that “[w]hile a
multiple axis drive configuration would, by requiring additional components, be
less compact than a single axis drive configuration, the drive wheel of Mann would
lend its lightweight and compact structure to either configuration” (Ans. 7). The
Examiner, however, does not explain, and it is not apparent, why, in view of
Mann’s disclosure that the compactness and light weight are the result of a single
axis drive (¶ 0007), that would be so.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mann in
view of Thompson is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013