Appeal No. 2004-0260 Page 3
Application No. 09/091,788
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 as
being anticipated by Brandenfels. Simply stated, Brandenfels lacks disclosure of a
vehicle comprising a driving portion which can be selectively switched between a
forward driving mode and a backward driving mode and which drives the vehicle
forward when the driving portion is in the forward driving mode and drives the vehicle
backward when the driving portion is in the backward driving mode, as called for in
independent claim 14. Brandenfels’ driving portion, as discussed in column 5, lines 4-
38, comprises a motor 136 which drives a pulley 140 which in turn drives a belt 144
entrained about a pulley 142 on the wheel 82 of the vehicle. The belt 144 is arranged
to normally slip in a nondriving relation such that the wheel 82 is normally freewheeling
and power drive of the wheel is accomplished by depressing an operator lever 156
which, via cable 154, actuates a belt tightener 148. Depression of the lever 156 also
simultaneously closes the circuit to the motor. Consequently, “when the lever 156 is
depressed by the operator, the belt is tightened and the wheel is powered, and when
the lever 156 is released, power to the wheel is shut off and the belt tightener is
released, thus allowing slippage of the belt and freewheeling of wheel 82" (column 5,
lines 33-38). This drive arrangement does not appear to provide any means for
switching between a forward driving mode, wherein the driving portion drives the vehicle
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007