Appeal No. 2004-0415
Application No. 09/764,743
(column 6, lines 26-31), such brake mechanism and releasing means
can be applied to almost any shopping cart in any
retail environment. It is easy to use, and does not
alter the function of the cart in any way. It simply
allows the cart to be rendered immobile in a parking
lot. With this advantage, the present invention makes
a practical addition to any cart.
Under these circumstances, we determine that it would have
been prima facie obvious to implement the claimed brake mechanism
and releasing means in the admittedly old shopping cart. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the
claimed brake mechanism and releasing means in the admittedly old
shopping cart in the manner taught by Trimble, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the advantages
indicated above.
The appellant argues that Trimble’s brake cable 74 “spans
the rear nesting opening of the cart, and would therefore cause
interference in the nesting of successive carts with such a
design.” See the Brief, page 6. This argument fails from the
outset since it is not based on limitations appearing in claim
1 on appeal. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1,
5 (CCPA 1982).
Even if we were to determine that such limitations are
present in claim 1, our conclusion would not be altered. As
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007