Appeal No. 96-1692
Application 08/156,811
1970). Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claims 1 through 5, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). With regard to
Gardner, it is the examiner's opinion, that
Gardner discloses a golf car with a
chassis, and electric dive [sic, drive]
system comprising a set of drive
batteries, an electric motor and a rear
axle assembly connected to the electric
motor connecting the electric motor
drive system to the drive axle and all
assemblies substantially entirely in the
drive system receiving area (answer,
page 5).
With regard to Westmont and Lanius, the examiner has indicated
that each of these references discloses "a golf car chassis with
an internal combustion engine and a drive assembly connected to
the rear axle assembly" (answer, page 5).
Noticeably absent from the examiner's comments
regarding the applied prior art references is any mention of a
"method of assembling a golf car" as is defined in claims 1
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007