Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
inherently capable of functioning in the manner called for in
the claims because the reference cam surface is “similar to”
appellant’s guide cam likewise is not well taken. The
examiner has not set forth any evidence or sound technical
reasoning to establish the reasonableness of his conclusion
that the asserted characteristic will necessarily occur in the
operation of Leleu’s device and, in our opinion, the shape of
Leleu’s cam surfaces as
illustrated in the drawings is such that the operation called
for in the claims will not occur. Hence, we will not sustain
the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3 and 6-14
based on Leleu.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of the appealed
claims based on Leleu alone, we appreciate that Leleu
discloses a control lever for controlling a cable actuated
brake of a bicycle wherein guide cam surface 5c or 13b thereof
may be given a profile to achieve a relatively large
displacement of the cable per unit rotation of the lever at
the beginning of the lever’s stroke and a smaller displacement
of the cable per unit rotation of the lever at the end of the
-14-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007