Appeal No. 2006-0985
Application No. 09/766,696
ISSUES
Appellant advances two contentions with respect to the examiner’s rejection.
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to position Ethington’s
power unit 50 on a chain stay. Appellant further contends that neither reference
teaches a control device which can be removed as a unit from the claimed bracket.
Accordingly, the sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the examiner has
established, by a preponderance of evidence, the prima facie obviousness of claims
1-16, 66, 67, 69 and 77-82.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ethington discloses a control device for a bicycle transmission. The control
device 50 is mounted with clamp bands 58 to the down tube of the bicycle frame.
Figure 5 shows the power unit in detail. The power unit has two reversible rotary
electric servo motors 112 which operate lead screws to reciprocate cables 66 and
68. A battery compartment 51 is removably mounted on the power unit 50.
Chappell also describes an automatic shifter for a derailleur which is
operated by the conventional cables normally found on a bicycle. The automatic
shifter is connected to a bicycle chain stay 38 by means of a bent connecting
finger 46.
Ethington differs from the claimed subject matter in that it does not show a
separate bracket and a removable control device, and the control device of
Ethington is installed on the drop tube rather than on the chain stay. Chappell
differs from the claimed subject matter in that Chappell does not disclose a
removable control device nor does it show a horizontal bracket base. However
Chappell is located on a bicycle chain stay as the claims require.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013