Appeal No. 97-2902
Application No. 08/170,332
The appellant's invention is directed to a suspension
system for motorcycles and the like. The subject matter
before us on appeal is illustrated by reference to claim 17,
which has been reproduced in an appendix to the Appeal Brief.
THE REJECTION
Claims 17 and 19-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
Each of the appellant’s independent claims contains the
limitation that there be a swinging arm coupling a wheel to
the frame of the vehicle, and that this swinging arm be
arranged such that a virtual line joining the two pivot points
on the swinging arm be substantially parallel to a line
extending from the point of tangency of the wheel with the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007