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3, lines 29-31) supports the argued construction of the term "springer fork" by indicating that the "springer fork" was originally made by Schwinn and that other manufacturers are presently manufacturing a replica of the Schwinn springer fork.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 9Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007