Ex Parte Wolfgram - Page 2


               Appeal No. 2004-1108                                                                                                   
               Application 09/756,833                                                                                                 

                       wherein said internal storage volume is specifically sized to receive and retain a                             
               conventionally available, foldable two-wheeled scooter.                                                                
               2.      The scooter of Claim 1, wherein said internal storage volume is at least seven inches (7")                     
               wide by five inches (5") deep by at least twenty four inches (24") high.                                               
               14.     A portable transportation vehicle comprising:                                                                  
                       a two-wheeled scooter of the type that is collapsible; and                                                     
                       a backpack specifically adapted to contain and carry said scooter.                                             
                       The appealed claims, as represented by the above claims, are drawn to a backpack which                         
               can contain and carry a conventionally available, foldable two-wheeled scooter.  The internal                          
               volume of the backpack can be as specified in appealed dependent claim 2.  In appealed                                 
               independent claim 14, a collapsible, two-wheeled scooter is claimed in combination with a                              
               backpack specifically adapted to contain and carry the scooter.                                                        
                       The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                  
               Cannaday                                      4,324,012                             Apr. 13, 1982                   
               McDermott                                     5,743,447                             Apr. 28, 1998                   
               Mott (Mott)                                   5,806,742                             Sep. 15, 1998                   
               Kearl                                         6,193,118                             Feb. 27, 2001                   
                                                                                                 (filed Dec. 9, 1997)                 
               Rota                                          6,332,566                             Dec. 25, 2001                   
                                                                                                 (filed Sep. 5, 2000)                 
               Ogami                                         10-119862                             May 12, 1999                    
                       (Japanese Patent)                                                                                              
                       The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:                                        
               claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rota (answer, page 3);                              
               claims 2 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                            
               Rota (answer, page 4);                                                                                                 
               claims 3, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rota in                         
               view of McDermott (answer, pages 4-5);                                                                                 
               claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rota in                      
               view of Kearl (answer, page 5-6);                                                                                      
               claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rota in view of Mott                       
               (answer, page 6);                                                                                                      
               claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rota in view of                            
               Cannaday (answer, page 7);                                                                                             


                                                                - 2 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007