Appeal No. 2001-0038
Application No. 08/992,999
been obvious to employ the elastic element 42 of Olson in
Charron without also providing the remainder of Olson’s anti-
lock brake system. However, this would result in a skate
chassis that does not respond to the requirement of claim 1
that the rubber block (i.e., skid pad) is rigidly connected to
the skate chassis, or the requirement of claim 1 that the
elastic material is mounted in a manner isolating it from
contact with other moving components.
We are aware of the examiner’s position to the effect
that Olson’s elastic material 42 will inherently function to
reduce vibrations, at least to some degree. However, even if
true, the rejection is not well taken. The examiner has
pointed to no teaching in Charron or Olson, and we are aware
of no such teaching, that would lead us to conclude that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated Olson’s
elastic element 42 as acting to absorb vibrations induced
during braking. Thus, the examiner’s analysis of Olson
appears to be based on the use of impermissible hindsight.
Where, as here, prior art references require a selective
combination of elements to render obvious the claimed
invention, there must be some reason for the combination other
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007