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
the
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
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007