Appeal No. 2004-0415
Application No. 09/764,743
rigid bar in that the cable is lighter, cable conforms to
the geometry of the cart more easily, which makes for better
appearance and lessens the possibility of inadvertent
movement of the mechanical communication by being bumped.
Thus, we concur with the examiner (Answer page 5) that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to utilize a cable
for the mechanical communication between the actuation lever
and brake mechanism of Trimble, as taught by Nolting, Jr.
The appellant only argues that Nolting does not teach the
features recited in claim 1. See the Brief, page 6. In so
arguing, the appellant ignores that the obviousness test under
Section 103 is not what the prior art references individually
teach, but what their combined teachings would have fairly
suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
When the teachings of Trimble and Nolting are collectively
considered, we determine that there is ample suggestion to arrive
at the subject matter recited in claim 3 as indicated supra.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007