Appeal No. 96-0324
Application 08/045,747
Moreover, even if it were to be determined that the
springer fork arrangement of Schwinn is not anticipatory of the
"low rider" kit set forth in appellant's claims 7 and 8 on
appeal, we consider that based on the added disclosure in
appellant's specification concerning the "common practice" in the
art involved in converting a springer fork to a low rider fork,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention to modify the springer fork
seen in the Schwinn patent to be a "low rider" style fork by
additionally bending the lower furcations of the Schwinn front
fork at the location of the already existing bend in the lower
half of the furcations thereof. We recognize that appellant
would consider this modification of the springer fork of Schwinn
to be "unsafe" due to the fact that the front fork might be
weakened by the heating needed to achieve the bending, but we
note that, in our opinion, such a modified springer fork would
nonetheless be a "low rider" springer fork as broadly recited in
appellant's claims 7 and 8. In this regard, we further note that
claims 7 and 8 do not specify a degree of bending, or the amount
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007