Appeal No. 96-0324 Application 08/045,747 by which the bend extends the furcations in the forward direction. Thus, even a relatively small amount of bend that gives the bicycle of Schwinn a "longer and lower look" would appear to fall within the metes and bounds of the "low rider" kit as defined in these claims on appeal. We have considered appellant's arguments in the brief and the reply brief as they may apply to the new grounds of rejection above, however, for the reasons advanced in those new grounds of rejection we remain of the view that the claimed subject matter as set forth in claims 7 and 8 on appeal is anticipated by Schwinn, or would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art based on Schwinn and the applied acknowledged prior art teachings. In summary, the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Smith and rejecting claims 1 through 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Smith as the primary reference are reversed. However, as provided for in 37 CFR § 1.196(b), a new rejection of appealed 15Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007