Appeal No. 96-0324 Application 08/045,747 nothing therein which can be said to provide for the deficiencies of the primary reference to Smith as noted above in our discussion of the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 8. That is, even if the Smith patent were modified in the manner urged by the examiner on pages 4-5 of the examiner's answer (a) to include a dropout feature with a built-in washer and raised lips, (b) to make the fork of "high strength material," and (c) to have a threaded fastener affixed to the steer tube for fastening a fender, the result would not be the subject matter as defined in appellant's claims 1 through 6 and 7 through 16 on appeal. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Smith in view of Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac, and that of claims 7 through 16 and 18 based on Smith in view of Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Schwinn, we do not share the examiner's view that it 10Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007