Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191
support hinge member [140a] of a predetermined length,
height and inside diameter and
b. furthermore rotating within the support hinge
member [140a] a snowboard brake assembly [12]
consisting of a single irregular angled shaped lever
arm member therefore [90] having a predetermined
number of legs-section of various lengths and
furthermore disclosing a pre-stressed torsion spring
member [190] located about one leg-section and
c. whereby the torsion spring [190] communicating
with the lever arm member [90] providing means of a
mechanical transmission for snowboard braking.
20. The mechanical brake of claim 19 wherein
having the first [90a] and third [90c] legs-sections
parallel and furthermore having the second leg-section
[90b] as a common axis whereas the first [90a] and
third [90c] legs-sections extend into moderately
divergent planes forming a “Oblique U” whereby the
third leg-section [90a] being the highest elevated
upon a flatted plane, and furthermore communicating
with the third leg-section [90c] a fourth leg-section
[90d] angled and perpendicular to the plane of the
second and third leg-section and furthermore parallel
to the first leg-section [90a], and furthermore having
about the second leg-section [90b] the torsion spring
member [190] and hinge member [140a], respectively.
On page 5 of the brief, appellant states that claims 7-20
stand or fall together. Hence, we consider claim 7 in this
appeal, and, additionally, claim 20 (for the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, indefiniteness rejection).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph (indefiniteness).
Claims 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Klubitschko in view of Renaud-Goud.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007