Appeal No. 96-0324 Application 08/045,747 "springer fork" arrangement of the type seen in Schwinn, we share appellant's view (brief, page 32) that such a total reconstruction of the front fork assembly and steer post of Smith, along with the other modifications proposed by the examiner in her rejection, is based on the hindsight benefit provided by appellant's own application disclosure and not on any teaching, suggestion or incentive provided by the references themselves. Thus, we will not sustain 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, or that of claims 7 through 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Smith in view of Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Schwinn. In accordance with our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196 (b), we enter the following new rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103 as being anticipated by Schwinn, or in the alternative as being obvious over Schwinn when considered in light of appellant's 12Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007