Appeal No. 96-0324 Application 08/045,747 disclosure (pages 3-4) of the "common practice" involved in converting a springer fork to a low rider fork. The only arguable difference between the springer fork kit for a bicycle seen in Schwinn (e.g., Figures 2 through 7) and that defined in appellant's claims 7 and 8 on appeal is the recitation that the kit is a "low rider" kit. From appellant's disclosure and the language of independent claim 7, we understand this limitation to require that the bicycle be provided with a longer and lower look, and that this appearance be the result of said lower limbs of the front fork furcations "having a bend that extends said furcations in a forward direction." In our opinion, the depiction of the bicycle in Figures 5 and 7 of Schwinn meets the broadly recited requirements of a "low rider." That is, the bicycle seen in these figures has a longer and lower look, and that appearance is at least in-part the result of said front fork furcations having a bend in the lower half of said furcations that extends said furcations in a forward direction. Thus, we consider that the fork of the Schwinn patent (e.g., Fig. 7) anticipates the broadly defined "springer fork low rider kit" of appellant's claims 7 and 8 on appeal. 13Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007