Appeal No. 2005-2398
Application No. 09/899,029
braking force. Regardless of the amount of rotation
force exerted on the handle member 48', the angled
surfaces 134 and 148 will always be in contact to some
extent. Once the pressure on the handle member 48' is
released, the control 47' will resume the at rest
position depicted in FIG. 11 due to the spring action
of the brakes 44 and the brakes will be released.
In view of the foregoing, we concur with the examiner that
Krauer would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims
31, 32 and 34 anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 31, 32 and 34 under Section 102(b).
Claim 33, however, is on different footing. Although Krauer
would have suggested employing a twist-type handle capable of
stopping a vehicle upon a quarter turn of the handle (less than
180o of rotation of the handle member as indicated supra), it
does not teach such handle with sufficient specificity to
constitute a description within the meaning of Section 102(b).
In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 8-9 (CCPA 1978);
In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 589, 172 USPQ 524, 527(CCPA 1972).
It follows that the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 33
under Section 102(b) is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007