Appeal No. 2005-2398
Application No. 09/899,029
the examiner that it would have been obvious to do the same for
the conventional two wheel wheelbarrow, motivated by a reasonable
expectation of successfully stopping or controlling the speed of
the conventional two wheel wheelbarrow.
With respect to claims 39 through 42 and 45, the examiner
again takes official notice that the claimed drum brakes and
wheelbarrows are known in the art. See the final Office action
dated November 5, 2002, pages 5-6. This assertion of official
notice is also taken consistent with the standard set forth in
Ahler, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. We accept this
assertion to be facts as well since the appellant has not
specifically challenged the official notice taken by the
examiner. See 37 CFR § 1.111(b); see also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at
713, 60 USPQ at 241. In any event, we note that Miyazaki teaches
employing the claimed drum brakes to control the speed of the
wheelbarrow as indicated supra. Thus, for the reasons set forth
above, we concur with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to employ the claimed drum brakes with a twist-type brake
control handle to stop or control the speed of the wheelbarrow of
the type discussed in Miyazaki.
In view of the foregoing, we concur with the examiner that
the combined disclosures of Miyazaki and Krauer would have
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007