Appeal No. 2000-0852 Page 4
Application No. 09/061,314
released by the operator. As manifested in independent claim 1, this feature is described
as
a lever arm having an extension arm hingedly attached to an outer end
thereof, . . . said extension arm adapted to be pivoted at the hinged
attachment . . . into contact with said lever arm, . . . such that continued
pivotal movement . . . in a first direction will cause rotational movement of
both said lever arm and said extension arm . . . to effect a hand brake
release, said extension arm capable of automatically pivoting about said
hinged attachment in a second direction upon release thereof causing said
extension arm to hang downwardly in an out-of-the-way position.
It is the examiner’s position that the admitted prior art discloses all of the elements
recited in claim 1 except for the two piece handle, but that this is taught by Hanahan and it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the release lever of the
admitted prior art in such a manner as to meet the terms of the claim. The appellants
argue in rebuttal that Hanahan is nonanalogous art and therefore cannot properly be
combined with the admitted prior art, that no suggestion exists that would have motivated
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner, and that even if the references were combined, the resulting structure would not
meet the terms of the claim.
The handle shown in Figure 2 of the appellants’ specification and labeled by the
appellants as “Prior Art” is the type over which the appellants believe their invention to be
an improvement. It comprises a one-piece handle that is adapted to be attached to a
brake release post so it can be rotated in first direction to release the hand brake.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007