Appeal No. 2004-0413
Application No. 09/752,301
II. The Merits of the Rejection
The main issue in the case “is whether the subject matter as
defined in claim 1 is obvious in view of Yuki . . . and
Mager . . . .” (main brief, page 4). More particularly, the main
issue for us to decide is whether it would have been obvious in
view of the combined teachings of Yuki and Mager to substitute an
electric hub motor for the motor drive arrangement of Yuki, such
that the modified Yuki wheelbarrow satisfies the limitation of
claim 1 that “said wheelbarrow wheel includ[es] an electric hub
motor for driving said wheelbarrow wheel.”
The examiner has found (answer, page 3-4), and appellants do
not dispute, that Yuki discloses a motorized wheelbarrow generally
as claimed in claim 1, including a frame 11 having a wheel fork 22,
spars 12 having support handles 20, a bucket 27 mounted on the
frame, a battery containment 33 for removably receiving a battery
29 for supplying electric power to the motor, and a control switch
56, 73 mounted on one of the handles for controlling the electric
power supply from the battery to an electric motor 30. The
examiner concedes that the electric motor of Yuki is not an
electric hub motor mounted in the wheel. The examiner turns to
Mager to remedy this deficiency.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007