Appeal No. 2000-1478 Page 7
Application No. 09/052,531
down devices 35 extend through the trailing brake shoe for
retaining the trailing brake shoe against the backing plate,
and two hold down devices 36 extend through the leading brake
shoe for retaining the leading brake shoe against the backing
plate.
In our opinion, the claimed subject matter is not
suggested by the teachings of the applied prior art. In that
regard, while Swift does teach two hold down devices for the
leading brake shoe, Swift does not teach or suggest using two
hold down devices for the leading brake shoe while using only
one hold down device for the trailing brake shoe. To supply
this omission in the teachings of the applied prior art, the
examiner made a determination (answer, pages 4-5) that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to an artisan.
However, this determination has not been supported by any
evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention.
In our view, the teachings of the applied prior art
suggest applying an equal number of hold down devices to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007