Appeal No. 2005-2398
Application No. 09/899,029
within the meaning of Section 103(a). Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 25, 26, 35, 36, 43, 44
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
NEW REJECTION
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)(2004), we enter a new ground of
rejection against claim 33.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Krauer. The content of the
Krauer reference is discussed above. Although Krauer does not
specifically mention that the twist-type brake control handle is
capable of stopping a vehicle upon making a quarter turn of the
handle, it teaches that 180o of rotation or less than 180 o of
rotation of the handle member (inclusive of the claimed quarter
turn of the handle) may be used to exert full braking force,
i.e., stop a bicycle (vehicle) as indicated supra,.
Thus, we determine that it can be inferred from Krauer that
it is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art
to make an appropriate adjustment to brakes so that a twist-type
brake control handle can exert full braking force via workable or
optimum rotation such as that claimed. See, e.g., In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). It follows
that Krauer would have rendered the claimed functionally defined
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007