Appeal No. 1999-2087
Application No. 08/595,449
The arguments advanced in the brief are unpersuasive for
the following reasons.
First, the appellants assert that a person of ordinary
skill would not have used the battery position of the JA 60-
7995 reference without also using the motor position shown by
the reference. See brief, p. 5. We do not perceive and the
appellants have not identified any teaching or suggestion in
the JA 60-7995 reference that the advantages of the battery
case and locking device specifically disclosed therein are
dependent on the positioning of the electric motor on the
bicycle frame. Thus, we find that the appellants’ assertion
has no factual basis in the record.
The appellants also argue that Murphy expresses a desire
to have the construction appear as closely as possible to a
conventional bicycle so that the arrangement can be utilized
with a conventional bicycle frame and that the modification
proposed by the examiner would defeat this basic objective of
the Murphy reference. See brief, pp. 5 and 6. The examiner’s
response is that the JA 60-7995 reference does show a
conventional bicycle frame. See answer, p. 6. We agree. In
our opinion, the bicycle frame illustrated in Figure 1 of the
-9-9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007