Appeal No. 2005-2398
Application No. 09/899,029
particularly, to such a cable control mounted at the end of a
handle-bar for coaxial rotation thereabout.” See column 1, lines
11-15.
Given these teachings, we concur with the examiner that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the
twist-type brake control handle described in Krauer, in lieu of
the lever-type brake control, to stop or control the speed of the
wheelbarrow described in Miyazaki, motivated by a reasonable
expectation of successfully avoiding the disadvantages associated
with the lever-type brake control.
With respect to claim 28, the examiner takes official notice
that two wheel wheelbarrows are known in the art. See the final
Office action dated November 5, 2002, page 4. This assertion of
official notice is taken consistent with the standard set forth
in In re Ahler, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA
1970). We accept this assertion to be facts since the appellant
has not specifically challenged the official notice taken by the
examiner. See 37 CFR § 1.111(b); see also In re Chevenard, 139
F.2d 711, 713, 60 USPQ 239, 241 (CCPA 1943). Since, as indicated
supra, Miyzaki and Kruauer would have suggested employing a
twist-type brake control handle with a brake drum to stop or
control the speed of a conventional wheelbarrow, we concur with
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007