Ex parte LYLES et al. - Page 9

          Appeal No. 96-1692                                                          
          Application 08/156,811                                                      

                    We do not find the examiner's position to be                      
          sustainable. Like appellants (brief, pages 5-10, and reply brief,           
          pages 2-3), we are of the opinion that the examiner has failed              
          to consider the claims as a whole, and that he has not given                
          weight to the fact that these claims are directed to a method or            
          process of assembling a golf car or land vehicle, and not to the            
          golf car or vehicle itself.  Nowhere in the applied prior art               
          references is there disclosed or suggested a golf car assembly              
          method which utilizes a single type of chassis (i.e., one having            
          a general block shaped drive system receiving area) to produce              
          golf cars with different types of drive systems (electric motors            
          or internal combustion engines) in a single assembly line.  The             
          examiner's apparent speculation concerning the methods by which             

          vehicles of Gardner, Westmont and Lanius may have been assembled            
          is of no value in evaluating appellants' claims on appeal.  The             
          selection of the proper type of drive system for a given golf car           
          or land vehicle in appellants' claimed method takes place during            
          the actual assembly of the golf car/vehicle while the universal             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007