Court Opinion

ID: 9451251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:11:07.74216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:37.794365
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge with whom RICH, J., joins):
(dissenting in part,
I do not find a valid basis for the affirmance of the rejection of claims 7 and 8 while reversing the rejection of the other claims. It seems to me that the language of claim 7 which locates the axially extending passage “about said axle” points out the same structural distinction over the art which the majority finds recited in claims 9-11 and 13. While the language of claims 9-11 and 13 is more specific than is the language of claim 7, we are here concerned only with whether' the claims define a structure which is obvious under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 103. I agree that neither reference structure shows the “open ended axially extending annular passage” of claims 9-11 and 13. However, when the same passage is defined as “an axially extending passage located about the axle,” as it is in claims 7 and 8, the majority agrees with the board that it is an obvious structure. I am unwilling to do so.
In addition, there are other features of claims 7 and 8 not discussed by the majority and which seem to me to be significant on this issue. Thus, no art of record shows “a fan positioned at one end” of the axially extending passage “about said axle” as called for in claims 7 and 8. In addition, no reference either alone or in combination shows such a fan driven by an electric motor as called for in claim 7. Similarly there is nothing of record which suggests placing the fan driving motor “within said axle,” as called for in claim 8.
The majority opinion specifically recognizes that the air passage in appellants’ invention is located outside the axle. It also specifically states that locating a fan (assumedly having driving means)
within the hub or axle of Griswold adjacent the central opening at the outer end thereof with blades of the fan projecting radially at said opening * * * would force air through a passage extending through the openings at the inner end * * past the brake discs, inwardly *388through the central openings in the hub [axle] and then through the hub [axle] and the axial opening therein. [Emphasis added.]
From the figures following I find it impossible to interpret Griswold in such a manner to yield “an axially extending passage located about said axle” enclosed by the rotatable wheel rim as called for in appealed claims 7 and 8. Clearly a fan and motor positioned in the radially extending opening inside the axle would not have the fan “positioned at one end of said passage,” meaning “the axially extending passage located about said axle,” as called for in appealed claims 7 and 8.
“About” is defined in Webster’s 3rd Int’l. Dictionary (1961) as including the following meanings: “1: on all sides: in every direction: Around * * * 2a: in rotation: Round * * * b: around the outside: in circumference * * * ” I cannot conclude that “about said axle” means both within the axle and outside the axle as the majority opinion requires. While the language of a claim is to be construed broadly, I know of no principle that requires that language to be construed so broadly so as to be contrary to the disclosed manner of operation of the invention defined by the claims. Here the term “about said axle” should be construed consistently with the disclosure of the invention.
While I agree with the reversal of the rejection of claims 9-11 and 13, I disagree with the affirmance of the rejection of claims 7 and 8.

*389