Ex parte LARIVIERE - Page 14

          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            


Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007