Appeal No. 96-0324
Application 08/045,747
disclosure (pages 3-4) of the "common practice" involved in
converting a springer fork to a low rider fork.
The only arguable difference between the springer fork
kit for a bicycle seen in Schwinn (e.g., Figures 2 through 7) and
that defined in appellant's claims 7 and 8 on appeal is the
recitation that the kit is a "low rider" kit. From appellant's
disclosure and the language of independent claim 7, we understand
this limitation to require that the bicycle be provided with a
longer and lower look, and that this appearance be the result of
said lower limbs of the front fork furcations "having a bend that
extends said furcations in a forward direction." In our opinion,
the depiction of the bicycle in Figures 5 and 7 of Schwinn meets
the broadly recited requirements of a "low rider." That is, the
bicycle seen in these figures has a longer and lower look, and
that appearance is at least in-part the result of said front fork
furcations having a bend in the lower half of said furcations
that extends said furcations in a forward direction. Thus, we
consider that the fork of the Schwinn patent (e.g., Fig. 7)
anticipates the broadly defined "springer fork low rider kit" of
appellant's claims 7 and 8 on appeal.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007