Appeal No. 2005-2182
Application No. 10/417,458 Page 3
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellant and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellant’s viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472,
223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Nagano is directed to a bicycle pedal system having variable
pedal surfaces. For example, a first pedal surface may include a
cleat engaging device (4, Fig. 1) for engaging a cleat present on
the shoe of an operator. An adapter (5, Fig. 1) is furnished
that includes a tread surface (12, Fig. 1) for an ordinary shoe
without cleats. The adapter (5) of Nagano covers one of the
major surfaces of the pedal as depicted in drawing Figure 2.
The examiner (final rejection, page 2) acknowledges that
Nagano does not disclose the claimed structure including a pedal
adapter comprising a first portion and a second portion that
sandwich a clipless bicycle pedal therebetween, wherein each of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007