Appeal No. 98-0176
Application No. 08/022,308
§ 1.197(b) of our decision of December 23, 1998 (Paper No.
30), insofar as we affirmed the rejections of claims 1 to 3,
6, 12 14, 42 and 43, and rejected claims 44 to 46 pursuant to
37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
With regard to rejection (1)(a), appellants argue, as
they did in their brief, that element 33 of Kahlert is not a
"brake pad," as claimed. Appellants cite dictionary
definitions of "brake" to the effect that a brake is a device
for slowing or stopping a vehicle, wheel or machine, and
assert that Kahlert’s tip or bumper does not so act because it
merely prevents the skate from moving forward when it (33) is
in contact with the ground. This same argument was presented,
in less detail, in appellants’ brief, and we do not agree with
it for the reasons stated on pages 4 and 5 of our decision.
Even accepting the dictionary definitions cited by appellants
as controlling, bumper 33 still constitutes a "brake pad"
because it certainly would be capable of stopping the skate if
it were brought into contact with the ground while the skate
was still moving. We do not consider that the patentability
of the apparatus recited in these claims may be predicated on
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007