Appeal No. 96-0324
Application 08/045,747
"springer fork" arrangement of the type seen in Schwinn, we share
appellant's view (brief, page 32) that such a total
reconstruction of the front fork assembly and steer post of
Smith, along with the other modifications proposed by the
examiner in her rejection, is based on the hindsight benefit
provided by appellant's own application disclosure and not on any
teaching, suggestion or incentive provided by the references
themselves. Thus, we will not sustain 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, or that of claims 7
through 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Smith in view
of Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac as applied to claims 1-6
above, and further in view of Schwinn.
In accordance with our authority under 37 CFR
§ 1.196 (b), we enter the following new rejection of claims 7
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103 as
being anticipated by Schwinn, or in the alternative as being
obvious over Schwinn when considered in light of appellant's
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007