Ex parte LARIVIERE - Page 9

          Appeal No. 96-0324                                                          
          Application 08/045,747                                                      

          by the examiner, and not as being susceptible to a broad                    
          construction that would be readable on the simple shock absorbing           
          bicycle front end seen in Smith.  Appellant's own specification             
          (at page 3, lines 29-31) supports the argued construction of the            
          term "springer fork" by indicating that the "springer fork" was             
          originally made by Schwinn and that other manufacturers are                 
          presently manufacturing a replica of the Schwinn springer fork.             
          Given the art-recognized understanding of what constitutes a                
          "springer fork," it is clear that Smith does not teach or                   
          disclose such a structure and cannot be said to anticipate under            
          35 U.S.C.  102(b) the "springer fork low rider kit" defined in             
          appellant's claim 7 on appeal.                                              

                    In accordance with the foregoing, the examiner's                  
          rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) based            
          on Smith will not be sustained.                                             

                    As for the rejection of claims 3 through 6 and 9                  
          through 16 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Smith           
          in view of Clark, Isaac and Fuller, we have carefully reviewed              
          the teachings of Clark, Isaac and Fuller, however, we find                  


Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007