Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
lever’s stroke. We also appreciate that Leleu broadly teaches
that this cam profile may be modified to fine tune the cable
actuator to a particular situation (see, for example, page 7,
lines 15-21, of the translation). However, we do not agree
with the examiner that these broad teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a guide cam
surface wherein the distance between the cable connector and
the lever axis first decreases and then increases during the
stroke of the lever, as now claimed, since this type of
arrangement would run counter to the type of
operation desired by Leleu (translation, page 7, lines 6-9)
wherein displacement of the cable relative to lever movement
is smallest at the end of the lever’s stroke. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the standing § 103 of claims 2, 3, 5-14 as
being unpatentable over Leleu.
As to the standing § 103 rejection based on Leleu in view
of Bourret, Bourret pertains to a two-stage throttle control
lever for a recreational vehicle such as a snowmobile. The
primary object of Bourret (column 1, lines 12-44) is to
provide a throttle control lever wherein the throttle
-15-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007