Appeal No. 2005-2529
Application No. 10/154,140
agree with appellants that the appealed claims reasonably embrace
a range of values for the claimed threshold force that allows one
of ordinary skill in the art to be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the claimed invention. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). In the present case,
we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed
with available physiological and medical knowledge, would be able
to make a safety handlebar within the scope of the appealed
claims that collapses under a range of forces able to cause TAWH
in human beings of various ages and physical condition.
We now turn to the examiner's § 103 rejection. Appellants
do not dispute the examiner's factual findings with respect to
the structural elements of Fenton's handlebar, including nut F
and sleeve C being a housing that retains the bias member. It is
appellants' principal argument that, although suitable materials
for nut F are not explicitly disclosed in Fenton, "one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Fenton to teach
metal (e.g., steel) components that would not inherently fail
upon application of a force sufficiently low that the bias member
would not force the handlebar end to rebound into a bike rider
with trauma-inducing force" (page 9 of principal brief, second
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007