Appeal No. 96-0324
Application 08/045,747
by the examiner, and not as being susceptible to a broad
construction that would be readable on the simple shock absorbing
bicycle front end seen in Smith. Appellant's own specification
(at page 3, lines 29-31) supports the argued construction of the
term "springer fork" by indicating that the "springer fork" was
originally made by Schwinn and that other manufacturers are
presently manufacturing a replica of the Schwinn springer fork.
Given the art-recognized understanding of what constitutes a
"springer fork," it is clear that Smith does not teach or
disclose such a structure and cannot be said to anticipate under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) the "springer fork low rider kit" defined in
appellant's claim 7 on appeal.
In accordance with the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Smith will not be sustained.
As for the rejection of claims 3 through 6 and 9
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith
in view of Clark, Isaac and Fuller, we have carefully reviewed
the teachings of Clark, Isaac and Fuller, however, we find
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007