Appeal No. 96-0324
Application 08/045,747
nothing therein which can be said to provide for the deficiencies
of the primary reference to Smith as noted above in our
discussion of the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8.
That is, even if the Smith patent were modified in the manner
urged by the examiner on pages 4-5 of the examiner's answer (a)
to include a dropout feature with a built-in washer and raised
lips, (b) to make the fork of "high strength material," and (c)
to have a threaded fastener affixed to the steer tube for
fastening a fender, the result would not be the subject matter as
defined in appellant's claims 1 through 6 and 7 through 16 on
appeal.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Smith in view of
Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac, and that of claims 7
through 16 and 18 based on Smith in view of Georgiev, Moulton,
Clark and Isaac as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in
view of Schwinn, we do not share the examiner's view that it
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007