Appeal No. 2001-0038
Application No. 08/992,999
page 4). Implicit in the rejection is the examiner’s position
that the modified Charron skate would correspond in all
respects to the subject matter of claim 1. We do not agree.
The thrust of Olson is the provision of an anti-lock
brake arm 26 for an in-line skate, said brake arm being
adapted to apply a braking force to the ground engaging
surface of the rear wheel when the braking skid pad 24 is
caused to firmly engage the ground. To this end, the skid pad
24 and the brake arm 26 are mounted on a support 23 that is
pivotally attached to the skate chassis by pivot pin 22. The
sole disclosed purpose of the elastic element 42 noted by the
examiner in the rejection is to bias the brake arm 26 of Olson
to a neutral position so that the brake arm 26 does not engage
the rear wheel until a large braking operation is performed
(paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5). Thus, the skid pad 24
of Olson is not rigidly connected to the skate chassis, and
the elastic element 42 is not mounted in a manner isolating it
from contact with other moving components. Since the anti-
lock brake arm 26 of Olson has no counterpart in Charron, and
since the only disclosed purpose of Olson’s elastic element is
to bias the brake arm to a neutral position, it would not have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007