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
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007