Appeal No. 2003-0275 Page 13
Application No. 09/550,032
Based on our analysis and review of Boberg and claim 25, it is our opinion that
the differences include (1) an axle having a housing extending between a pair of wheels
and including an axle shaft rotatably supported with respect to the housing for driving
the wheels; and (2) a retarding system including at least one magnet separated from an
inductor to define a gap such that the magnet and inductor can move relative to one
another without interference wherein the magnet is directly mounted to either one of the
housing or to one of the axle shaft or driveshaft and the inductor is directly mounted to
the other of the axle shaft or driveshaft or to the housing, the retarding system for
producing a retarding force as the magnet and inductor move relative to one another to
slow the rotation of the wheels when the actuator moves the brake members to the
actuated position.
Obviousness of claimed subject matter
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007