BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a bic ycle shift control device. Claims 1 and 51
are representative of the subject matter on appeal, and a copy of these claims can be
found in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
T he examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Yamane 5,921,139 Jul. 13, 1999
The appellant seeks our review of the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 and 51
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yamane.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed November 10, 2005) for the examiner's com plete reasoning in support of the
rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed September 12, 2005) and reply brief (filed
December 21, 2005) for the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a con sequence of our review, we make
the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after consideration of the record before
us, Yamane does not anticipate the claimed invention.
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner has determined that Yamane
teaches a bicycle shift control device including all of the elements of the claim. (Final
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007