Appeal No. 98-0176
Application No. 08/022,308
whether or not element 33 of Kahlert should happen to engage
the ground while the skate was still moving.
For the same reasons, the rejections of claims 44 to 46
under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), and rejection 2(e) of claim 42, are
still considered correct.
As for rejection (2)(a), appellants contend that there
would have been no motivation to modify Gray in view of
Landers, because Landers teaches away from using fixed-surface
brakes as disclosed by Gray. This argument was addressed on
pages 8 and 9 of our decision, and we still consider the
rejection to be well taken. We do not believe that one of
ordinary skill, considering the problem of mounting a non-
rotatable brake pad on a skate, would ignore the disclosure in
the prior art of mountings for rotatable brake pads. Although
Landers discloses that a rotatable brake per se is superior to
a fixed-surface brake, that would not teach away from using
the rotatable brake support disclosed by Landers for
supporting a non-rotatable brake.
The request for rehearing is accordingly denied to the
extent that it seeks any reversal or modification of the
decision on appeal (Paper No. 30).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007