Appeal No. 2004-0413
Application No. 09/752,301
general in its description of the motorized wheelbarrow shown in
the photo that a reasonable nexus between the pictured wheelbarrow
and the claimed subject matter cannot be established. Finally,
appellants argue on pages 4-5 of the main brief to the effect that
since electric hub motors such as the one shown in Mager have has
been around for over 20 years, there should be a power wheelbarrow
in the art that utilizes such a drive arrangement, if that were
obvious. However, the age of the references is not persuasive of
nonobviousness absent some showing that the art tried and failed to
solve some problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the
references. In re Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347, 179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA
1973).
In light of the above, we shall sustain the standing rejection
of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Yuki in view of Mager. We
shall also sustain the standing rejection of claims 2-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) since, as indicated above, these claims stand or
fall with claim 1.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007