Appeal No. 2006-0954
Application No. 10/316,444
Buckley et al. (Buckley) 6,003,639 Dec. 21, 1999
Cheever et al. (Cheever) 6,443,027 Sep. 3, 2002
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Buckley in view of Cheever.
OPINION
The rejection is reversed as to claims 1-17 and 19, and
affirmed as to claim 18.
Claims 1-17 and 19
We need to address only the independent claims among
claims 1-17 and 19, i.e., claims 1, 9 and 15. Claims 1 and 15
require that the position of a pivotable connection of a bicycle
handlebar brake handle to a housing, relative to the housing’s
clamp axis on the handlebar, is such that a mechanical advantage
to a user resulting from actuating the handle does not diminish
more than 3% as the handle is pivoted between its engagement
point and fully actuated position. Claim 9 requires that the
engagement point is 50 mm or less from the clamp axis and is
located such that an actuation chord between the engagement point
and the end point of an arc between the engagement point and the
fully actuated position extends at an angle relative to the clamp
axis greater than or equal to a select angle less 6°, where the
uniformity of mechanical advantage (page 17, lines 1-14), but the select angle is not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007